Appeal No. 2005-0296
Application No. 09/802,097
DISCUSSION
I. Preliminary matters
On page 2 in the reply brief, the appellant questions
whether the examiner (1) held an appeal conference in accordance
with USPTO practice and (2) entered the amendment filed
concurrently with the main brief proposing changes to claims 9,
18 and 22. The record shows that the examiner has done both.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 9, 11, 12, 15 through 17 and 22 as being unpatentable
over Matthews in view of O’Neill
Matthews discloses a multi-functional baby device 10
comprising a resilient support cushion 12 (e.g., a polyester
fiber fill with a cotton cover) composed of a back section 14 and
two side sections 16 and 18 which collectively form a recess 30
for supportably receiving a baby, a mat 40 connected to the
support cushion, and a series of straps 50, 50', 50'' positioned
on the support cushion back section for removably securing toys
52, 54, 56 to the device. Matthews teaches that the positioning
of the straps preferably is such that the toys are accessible
when a baby is in a prone position, but not when the baby is in a
supine position (see the Abstract; column 1, lines 60 through 63;
and column 4, lines 10 through 65).
It is not disputed that Matthews teaches, or would have
suggested, a play kit and method meeting all of the limitations
in independent claims 1, 9 and 22 except for those relating to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007