Appeal No. 1998-1029
Application 08/361,590
elasticity. Based on the lack of specifics in these matters,
the examiner’s conclusions that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to (1) make the mouth opening
of Bunin’s Figure 2 embodiment of a size allowing at least two
fingers to be inserted therein, and (2) select the material of
Bunin’s Figure 2 puppet-like figure such that its mouth is
capable of being deformed over 50% of its undeformed width and
then automatically return to substantially its undeformed
width when a deforming force is removed, lack suggestion in
the applied prior art. In this regard, the test for
obviousness is not that the ordinarily skilled artisan “would
have the skill to modify the disclosed elasticity to any
degree including over 50%” (answer, page 5), as the examiner
appears to believe.
In light of the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the standing § 103 rejection of claims 17 and 19-21 as being
unpatentable over Bunin.
The § 103 rejection based on Sauer and Exline
Sauer is directed to a picture device that may be
manipulated so that the expression or attitude of the picture
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007