Appeal No. 96-3885
Application No. 08/255,076
More specifically, the Hill patent points out (column 2, lines 35
through 43) that by “compressing” the toy to where the trailing
sides meet and throwing it with a rifling action, as the toy is
released the flexible cylinder rebounds to its rest or open shape
as it leaves the thrower’s fingertips. Thus, the patentee
desires a compressible and flexible cylinder (sail or airfoil)
which can automatically return to its open shape. Replacing the
compressible sail of Hill with a trailing portion not intended to
be compressed and with a rebound function (Waters), as proposed,
would clearly defeat patentee Hill’s objective for his aerial
toy.
Considering the examiner’s alternative application of the
applied art, it likewise appears to us that the collective
teachings lack any express or implicit incentive for completely
altering the disclosed use of the aerial toy of Waters based upon
the Hill teaching of a distinctly different aerial throwing toy.
We have also assessed the respective teachings of Stauffer
and Klahn but find that they do not overcome the noted
deficiencies of the Hill and Waters references.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007