Appeal No. 98-2049
Application 08/549,061
Finally, the application is remanded to the examiner to
consider whether the subject matter recited in claim 1 or any
other claim would have been obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of Hoody and
Daniels, with or without additional prior art references. In
this regard, Hoody discloses a lariat or lasso toy which is
made safe for children by the inclusion of an element 14 for
detachably securing end and intermediate portions of the
lariat rope to create a noose wherein the element permits the
end portion to release from the intermediate portion under
limited predetermined tension in the noose. Daniels discloses
a spinning rope or lasso having a handle-swivel construction
of the type required by the claims to facilitate spinning the
rope.
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
declarations proffered by the appellant are rather ambiguous
and speculative, and have not been placed in any meaningful
context (see, for example, In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137, 40
USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Cable Elec. Prods. Inc. v.
Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27, 226 USPQ 881, 887-88
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007