Appeal No. 1998-1610
Application No. 08/551,319
order to cause pumping of air through the voids, it would not
have been obvious to vary the compressibility of the foam
material suggested by Spann to provide a sufficiently stiff
pad
which effectively retains the basic shape of the passageways
when supporting the weight of an infant.
Since all the claimed limitations are not suggested by
the prior art, it follows that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established by the examiner. Claims6
5 and 6 are dependent on claim 1 and contain all of the
limitations of that claim. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will not be sustained.
The rejections of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Our review of Saviez and Hargest, which are used in
combination with Spann to reject claims 2 and 4, respectively,
A prima facie case of obviousness requires that all the claim6
limitations be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d
981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974).
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007