Appeal No. 2005-0296
Application No. 09/802,097
view of O’Neill whether or not physical contact with the toys is
permitted. Moreover, the combined disclosures of Matthews and
O’Neill also would have suggested the more limited subject matter
recited in claim 22. O’Neill’s teaching that the framework or
bars from which the toys are suspended encourage an infant to
reach out, explore and develop its senses and motor skills such
as hand/eye coordination and manipulative skills would have
provided the artisan with ample suggestion to position the bars
and the toys suspended therefrom within physical reach of the
child to permit the toy to be grasped and played with as recited
in claim 22. This teaching by O’Neill belies any notion that the
combined disclosures of Matthews and O’Neill would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art away from the invention set forth in
claims 1, 9 and 22.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 22 as being unpatentable
over Matthews in view of O’Neill.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5 through 8, 11, 12 and 15
through 17 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of O’Neill
since the appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with
parent claims 1 and 9 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007