Appeal No. 99-0179
Application 08/612,385
fabric toy 10 is displayed” (page 10).
Although both Schradermeier and Gullace disclose an
“apparatus” comprising a shell, seams and an opening, neither
teaches or would have suggested an “apparatus” having the
particular seam construction required by claims 1 and 8, i.e.,
a seam which is displaced from the perimeter of the apparatus
shell with its ends having an increased displacement from the
perimeter at the opening. The examiner’s findings and
conclusions to the contrary (see pages 4 and 5 in the answer)
are predicated on speculation, conjecture and unfounded
assumptions lacking any factual support in the applied
references.2
Accordingly, we shall not sustain any of the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) or § 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1
and 8 or of dependent claims 2 through 7, 9 through 13 and 21.
The following rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
2To the extent that the examiner’s reliance on the
Butterick reference on page 5 of the answer “in the interests
of showing what is well known in the art” is proper (see In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA
1970)), such reliance does nothing to cure the above noted
deficiencies of Schradermeier and Gullace.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007