Appeal No. 2005-0296
Application No. 09/802,097
opposing arms that form a generally open well, and wherein the
mat extends across the open well and beyond the arms; and
at least one bar that is positionable over the pillow, with
the attachment mechanism coupling the pillow to the bar such that
when a child lies on the pillow body and the mat in a face-up
orientation, the child’s head is firmly supported by the pillow
body while permitting access to any toys suspended from the bar.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Clute 5,193,238 Mar. 16, 1993
Matthews 5,546,620 Aug. 20, 1996
O’Neill et al.
(O’Neill) 5,930,854 Aug. 03, 1999
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 15 through 17 and
22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Matthews in view of O’Neill.
Claims 10 and 18 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of O’Neill
and Clute.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 17 and 20) and the final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 14
and 19) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
1
1 Although the examiner’s statement of the second rejection
refers to claim 22, the accompanying explanation of the rejection
indicates that the inclusion of claim 22 was inadvertent.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007