Appeal No. 97-1020
Application 08/229,650
blanket of Miller, the baby was aligned along the diagonal
axis of the blanket.
The following paragraph from page 5 of the brief
appears to summarize appellants' primary argument:
Thus, it is believed that the only thing
that might be obvious in the combination
[of Miller and Ranalli] would be to place
the harness openings at an area where they
would
be placed outside of the periphery of the
child receiving enclosure in the blanket.
As such, the harness would be well outside
the periphery of the baby's body and the
baby could shift positions significantly in
the combination without being restrained.
We do not agree with this argument, since we do not consider
that one of ordinary skill, modifying the blanket of Miller in
view of
Ranalli's teachings, would place the apertures at locations
where the straps passing through them would not be effective
to restrain the baby.
It is presumed that in combining the teachings of
prior art references, those of ordinary skill will exercise
skill, rather than the converse, see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and that they
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007