Appeal No. 1999-0069
Application No. 08/388,741
subject matter recited in claim 1, it is the examiner’s
position that Glover teaches all except for being “silent as
to the shape of the rubber body,” a feature which, in the
examiner’s view, “would have been obvious to the ordinary
skilled person in the art, since the Glover device is to
simulate a fish,” as would the elasticity of the material from
which the body is made, “through routine experimentations”
(Answer, page 4). Notwithstanding this line of reasoning, the
examiner combines with Glover the Eastep reference for its
disclosure of a fish-shaped rubber body and, alternatively,
with Wood or Kindred for their teachings of utilizing unitary
body structures in a propelling device.
Glover is directed to a submersible toy that is in the
shape of a fish. The toy is illustrated and described as
being a “flat body” (Figure 2; page 2, lines 63-64)), although
it is stated in the Glover specification that it can also be a
“hollow flexible body of rubber or other waterproof material”
(page 2, lines 65-67). Even if one considers, arguendo, that
the body of the Glover device is made of elastomeric material,
with regard to the requirements of claim 1, it is our view
that this reference has several deficiencies. First, there is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007