Ex parte MILETI - Page 6

          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               

               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.                             


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007