Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
Block’s teaching of not bending the tips of the arms as
discussed supra cannot be ignored. Instead, a determination
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires consideration of the entirety
of the disclosure made by the reference. See In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146 (CCPA 1976). As noted
in column 3, lines 16-21, of Block’s specification, the toy
will still fly even though the tips of the arms are not bent
and thus remain in the plane of the remainder of the arms.
In Block’s flying toy as shown in Figures 1-3, the center
post 30 admittedly extends out of the plane containing the hub
and arms of the toy. However, as noted supra, claim 13 does
not exclude the step of adding the post to the planar body
that is cut from the plastic sheet. In any event, the
elimination of the post and its associated function set forth
in column 4, lines 25-26, would have been an obvious
expedient. See In re Kuhle, 526
F.2d at 555, 188 USPQ at 9. Like the elimination of the
bevels 25, the elimination of Block’s post 30 would not render
the toy inoperative.
Finally, the arms and hub of Block’s flying toy are flat
sided and thus lack an airfoil shaped surface in the sense
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007