Appeal No. 2005-0296
Application No. 09/802,097
O’Neill, “the provision of the framework 6 encourages the infant
to look around and up and down, and to reach out and explore,
thereby developing both its senses and its motor skills——for
example hand/eye coordination and manipulative skills” (column 4,
lines 61 through 65).
In proposing to combine Matthews and O’Neill to reject
independent claims 1, 9 and 22, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art “to attach a bar [as in
O’Neill] to the pillow body [of Matthews] in order to stimulate a
child resting in a supine position” (final rejection, pages 2 and
3). In the same vein, the examiner submits that “[t]aking both
references as a whole would provide motivation for providing toys
for entertaining infants in their supine position” (answer,
page 4).
In general, this proposed combination of Matthews and
O’Neill is reasonable on its face and has not been specifically
challenged by the appellant. The appellant does argue, however,
that the rejection is unsound essentially because Matthews and
O’Neill would not have suggested, and in fact teach away from,
permitting a child to have physical access to the toys. This
line of argument is not persuasive.
To begin with, claims 1 and 9 do not require physical or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007