Appeal No. 98-1194
Application 08/630,669
formed of thin elastic rubber and adapted, when inflated, to
conform to the outline of the elongated casing" (page 1, lines
23 through 30). The casing contains a slit 13 for
accommodating the nipple or neck of the balloon.
Casey discloses an inflated rubber playing ball 10
bearing simulated human or animal facial features. In this
regard, Casey teaches that
[t]he mold cavities are designed so that during the
vulcanizing process internal pressure will force
portions of the wall of ball 10 into irregular,
relatively shallow, recesses to form portions on the
outer surface of the ball projecting sufficiently to
provide the desired design. These projections may
be formed to simulate the eyes 11, 11, nose 12,
mouth 13, ears 14, 14, hair 15, etc., of the
irregular features of the so-called man in the moon,
substantially as shown [page 1, column 1, lines 25
through 34].
In explaining the rejection on appeal, the examiner
states
that
Eiseman merely differs from appellant's ball in
the simulation only of the head, the type of
material used for the casing, and the ball being
spherical in shape. Casey clearly teaches
simulating only of the head, spherical shape, and an
elastomeric material for a ball device. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of appellant's invention to
incorporate the features taught by Casey in the
Eiseman ball as obvious alternatives in design
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007