Appeal No. 98-1048
Application 08/516,245
form of a cone 5 connected to the ball element at
its base and which is of substantially the same
diameter as the ball. The neck joint is assembled
by forcing the cone 5 through the first opening 3a
into the socket 3 and then forcing it through the
second opening 3b during which operation the ball
element 4 passes though the first opening into the
socket 3. This involves stretching the material
around the second opening 3b which then returns to
its original diameter which is substantially less
than that of the base of the cone 5. The undercut
nature of the cone 5 makes it virtually impossible
for the cone 5 to be withdrawn again through the
second opening 3b to break the joint. In
consequence of this the head 1 may be moved on the
neck to extreme positions in which the material of
the socket 3 is appreciably deformed without risk of
removing the head from the neck [page 2, lines 18
through 53].
The examiner concedes (see page 3 in the answer) that
Rovex does not teach, and would not have suggested, a doll
meeting the limitations in independent claims 1 and 4
requiring a head attachment post having a ball end (claims 1
and 4) and a head having a tapered (claim 1) or upwardly open
(claim 4) aperture for seating upon or against the ball end.
The examiner's reliance on Takara to overcome these
deficiencies is not well taken.
Takara discloses a doll comprising a body 20 and a head
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007