Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
of equiangularly spaced arms 2 radially extending from a
central hub. In Gleason’s flying toy, however, both side
edges of each of the arms are perpendicular to the plane
containing the entire body of the toy except for the bent tips
5. This teaching would have implicitly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the concept of providing Block’s
arms 21-24 with side edges extending perpendicularly to the
plane of the toy for the self-evident purpose of eliminating
the manufacturing cost of forming the bevels on Block’s arms.
Admittedly, this suggestion to modify Block is not expressly
stated in Gleason. However, the suggestion to modify the
prior art need not be expressly articulated in one or all of
the references. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217
USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellant’s argument in the second full paragraph on page
6 of the brief seems to suggest that the claimed cutting step
somehow is not met by Block because Block states in column 4,
lines 22-23, that the toy is “cut and formed” from the plastic
sheet. We disagree. With respect to the embodiment shown in
Figures 1-3 of Block’s drawings, the mention of “forming”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007