Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
substantially greater than the width thereof. Appellant does
not argue otherwise.
With further regard to clause B of claim 13, appellant
seems to concede that Block discloses the concept of cutting
the flying toy from a sheet of plastic. He is understood to
argue, however, that Block does not teach that the cutting
step takes place along planes substantially perpendicular to
the plane of the sheet as recited in clause B of claim 13.
Appellant is also understood to argue that one of the side
edges of each arm in Block’s toy is beveled and therefore does
not extend perpendicular to the plane of the sheet.
Admittedly, Block does not explicitly describe the
specific orientation of cuts made by the cutting step
disclosed in column 4, lines 22-23 of the patentee’s
specification. However, as generally noted by the examiner on
page 5 of the answer, it is well known in the art to cut a
plastic sheet in order to produce a plastic article and it
also is well known in the art to make the cuts along planes
perpendicular to the plane of the sheet to simplify the
cutting operation. Appellant does not challenge these
determinations.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007