Appeal No. 96-3885
Application No. 08/255,076
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Initially, we make note of the following claim language
interpretations. We understand the recitation of “substantially
rigid”, relative to the ring-like structure, to denote a rigid
structure that may have some flexibility (specification, page 6).
As to the “ring-like” structure, we understand this recitation to
denote a structure that is as round as possible, but not having
perfect roundness (specification, page 6). As regards to the
recitation of “sheetlike”, we understand that term to denote
something akin to a sheet (specification, page 6) that is thin in
comparison to its length and breadth.
We turn now to the examiner’s obviousness rejections.
Each of the examiner’s rejections is founded upon the basic
combination of the Hill and Waters patents.
Simply stated, we are of the view that one having ordinary
skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the
aerial toy of Hill as proposed since the specified alteration
would destroy the patentee’s intended functioning of the toy.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007