Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
edges of each arm extending perpendicular to the plane of the
toy or sheet from which the toy is cut. This implicit
recognition arises from Block’s teaching in column 3, lines
53-55 that the patentee’s beveled side edges 25 “provide a
smoother non-fluttering flight” ostensibly in comparison to a
corresponding toy without the beveled side edges.
Moreover, the inclusion of the bevels 25 in Block’s
flying toy does not constitute a distinction over the method
defined in appealed claim 13. This claim is open-ended in
that it is recited to comprise the steps of clauses A and B,
leaving the claim open to additional steps such as beveling.
Furthermore, the cutting step of clause B is not drafted in
such a way to exclude a further step of beveling one of the
side edges of each arm. In any event, it is well-established
patent law that the elimination of an element such as Block’s
bevels 25 together with their associated function (smoother
flight) would have been an obvious expedient. See In re
Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
In addition, the obviousness of eliminating the bevels 25
in Block’s flying toy is recognized in Gleason. Similar to
Block’s flying toy, Gleason’s flying toy comprises a plurality
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007