Appeal 2007-0548
Application 10/815,408
The § 103(a) Rejection Based on Bowman and Powell
The Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 5-11 is based on the
combination of Bowman and Powell. Like claims 1-4, each of these claims
requires support for the infant’s legs at a given angle relative to the torso.
Powell is an older reference that discloses a surgical table with “a
shallow depression or cavity for the reception of an infant.” (Col. 1, ll. 16-
19.) When strapped onto the table, the infant’s legs are supported but are
straight rather than bent, as required by the angular limitations in each claim.
(See Powell, FIGs. 1 and 2.) Powell does not disclose one or more recesses
configured to support an infant’s torso and legs “such that the thighs extend
out from the torso” at a particular angle. Thus, Powell does not cure the
deficiencies of Bowman, leaving a substantial gap between Appellants’
claimed invention and the prior art. With respect to a § 103 rejection, a gap
in the prior art teachings cannot not be “so great as to render the [claim]
nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Dann v. Johnston, 425
U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). For the reasons given with
respect to claims 1-4, we also reverse the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-5.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-4 under § 102(b)
and claims 5-11 under § 103(a).
REVERSED
Ssc
ORMISTON & MCKINNEY, PLLC
802 W. BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 400
P.O. BOX 298
BOISE ID 83701-0298
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013