Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
We have carefully considered appellant’s arguments
supporting patentability of claim 13 over the combined
teachings of Block and Gleason. However, we are not persuaded
that this rejection is improper.
The Block patent discloses a unitary flying toy (see
Figures 1-3 of Block’s drawings) which, like appellant’s
claimed toy, comprises a plurality of equiangularly spaced
arms 21-24 extending radially from a central hub 32. Block’s
specification states that the flying toy is “suitably cut and
formed from 80 mil polyethylene sheet material” (column 4,
lines 22-23). According to the examiner’s findings (see pages
3 and 4 of the answer), Block’s plastic sheet material is thin
and is also relatively rigid in the sense that the material
must be sufficiently rigid to make the toy work. Thus, the
step of providing a thin planar sheet of relatively rigid
plastic as defined in clause A of claim 13 is met by Block.
Appellant does not argue otherwise.
With regard to clause B of claim 13, the length of each
of Block’s arms 21-24 is roughly three times greater than the
width thereof (see column 4, lines 4-5 of the Block
specification), thus making the length of each arm
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007