Appeal No. 1999-0069
Application No. 08/388,741
is not a proper basis upon which to base a conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, even if the required suggestion were
present, there clearly is no teaching in any of the references
of making the Glover toy “approximately as dense as water,”
and there is no reason why this would even be desirable.
Further in this regard, the references are not concerned with
the center of mass of the device and do not explicitly locate
it or teach the required relationships between the center of
mass and the various elements, nor does there appear to be any
reason to do so.
In view of the preceding, the rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, 12 and 13 cannot be
sustained.
Independent claim 14 contains all of the limitations
missing from the Glover reference, except for the density
requirement. This claim also stands rejected on the basis of
Glover in view of Eastep and either Wood or Kindred. For the
same reasons set forth above with regard to independent claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007