Ex parte MILETI - Page 5

          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.               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007