Appeal No. 1998-1029
Application 08/361,590
In rejecting claim 17 as being unpatentable over Bunin,
the examiner implicitly concedes that Bunin does not disclose
a toy having a mouth sized to allow at least two fingers to be
inserted into the mouth, and that Bunin does not disclose that
the material of the puppet-like figure is elastically
deformable and capable of automatically returning to
substantially its undeformed width when force is removed.
Nevertheless, the examiner considers that
. . . the size of the mouth would have been obvious
as an obvious matter of design choice. It would
have been obvious to make the mouth opening of any
size, including a size to allow at least two fingers
to be inserted.
As to the elasticity of the material, Bunin
merely does not require the material to be elastic.
However, he does not say the material cannot be
elastic. In fact, the material is elastic so that
the material will not suffer permanent induced
change. [Final rejection, page 2.]
With respect to the claim requirement that the elasticity
of the material of the toy is such that the mouth can be
deformed to a width that is at least 50% greater than its
undeformed width, the examiner further contends that
. . . Bunin clearly discloses [that] the mouth of
the figure is flexible and [has] elasticity (column
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007