Appeal No. 97-3987 Page 12
Application No. 08/387,047
to enter the first tank and traverse the first toy vehicle
trackway; (3) a second track segment for guiding a toy vehicle
emerging from the first tank; and (4) a robot arm.
We agree with the examiner's determination (answer, p. 5)
that it would have been obvious to provide Goldfarb's toy vehicle
wash apparatus as a segment leading to Hippely's toy vehicle
playset. However, we also agree with the appellants' argument
(brief, pp. 6-7 and 9) that the combined teachings of Hippely 3
and Goldfarb would not have rendered obvious the subject matter
of claims 8 and 9. In that regard, we agree that the claimed
first and second toy vehicle trackway do not read on the bottom
surfaces of Hippely's tanks 82. Furthermore, there is no
teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art to provide a
first track segment for guiding a toy vehicle to enter the first
tank and traverse the first toy vehicle trackway. That is, there
is no suggestion of providing a trackway to the tanks 82 of
Hippely.
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007