Appeal No. 96-1608
Application 08/220,462
Rapata, Cotey and Refabert.4
Reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 25)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 26) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
Deichmann, the examiner's primary reference, discloses an
articulated doll having a head 1, an upper body 2, a lower
body 3, overarms 4, 4', forearms 5, 5, hands 6, 6', upper legs
7, 7', lower legs 8, 8 and feet 9, 9'. Some of these parts
consist of a pair of parallel plates bolted together in spaced
relationship. These plate-like parts articulate with respect
to one another via links 14 having ball-shaped ends 15, 15'
frictionally received in recesses formed in the edges of the
plates (see Figure 3).
As conceded by the examiner (see page 3 in the answer),
the Deichmann doll does not meet the limitations in
independent claims 9 and 10 relating to the spherical hollow
helmet-shaped socket portion. These limitations require the
4The examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claim 7 set forth in the final
rejection (see page 5 in the examiner’s answer, Paper No. 26).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007