Appeal No. 96-3885
Application No. 08/255,076
the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983); cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
The aerial toy of Waters (Figure 5; column 4, line 43 to
column 5, line 6) comprises, inter alia, a substantially rigid
ring structure (forward portion) and a cylindrical sleeve
(trailing portion) of cloth, cloth-like (Nylon), or plastic
(polyethylene) sheet. The aforementioned sleeve of the noted
material is understood to be in a collapsed state without
airflow. Further, the toy is perceived to be clearly capable of
being launched by a person in a manner similar to a sling through
the air to impart speed to the toy and to create airflow past the
toy (claim 1) and clearly capable of being launched through the
air to impart speed to the toy to create airflow past the toy
(claim 19). The toy of claims 1 and 19 is, accordingly,
anticipated by the aerial toy teaching of Waters.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Waters.
In our opinion, the disclosure in Waters (Figures 10, 11;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007