Ex parte NADEL et al. - Page 3

              Appeal No. 1998-2028                                                                      Page 3                 
              Application No. 08/365584                                                                                        

                      In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                      
              appellants' specification and claims, the applied prior art references, the respective                           
              positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner, and the guidance provided by our                        
              reviewing court.  As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which                               
                      The appellants’ invention is directed to providing a figurine with a bunch of fibers as                  
              hair, for example, which bunch comprises a plurality of nonilluminatable fibers and a                            
              plurality of illuminatable fibers.  As manifested in claim 1, the illuminatable fibers are                       
              optical fibers and each one is disposed closely proximate a plurality of nonilluminatable                        
              fibers and is of lesser length than the surrounding nonilluminatable fibers.                                     
                      It is the examiner’s view that Konta discloses all of the subject matter of claim 1                      
              except for the illuminatable fibers being of a shorter length than the nonilluminatable fibers,                  
              but that Cocca teaches making illuminatable fibers of different lengths, and therefore it                        
              would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hair of Konta in                       
              accordance with the requirements of claim 1 because the length of hair on a doll is a                            
              design choice (Answer, pages 5 and 6).  The appellants argue that the only suggestion for                        
              doing so is hindsight.  We agree.                                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007