Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
Appellants again make only a single argument against
this rejection. Specifically, appellants argue that Popowski
“does not describe or suggest the perforated areas lacking in
the
Fong et al. patent as described above, nor any other means for
facilitating operation of drawing apparatus by a child”
[brief, page 6].
This argument is not persuasive because it is
completely unrelated to the claimed invention. Representative
claim
35 recites no perforated areas even though Fong teaches a
perforated area as discussed above. We also find no language
within claim 35 which requires a consideration of how use of
the claimed invention by a child is facilitated. Since
appellants have offered no arguments which are persuasive of
error in the examiner’s rejection, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-6, 8-18, 35 and 36.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22-24 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Fong in view of Wickstead.
We will consider this rejection with respect to claim 22 as
representative of all the claims within this group. This
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007