Appeal No. 1999-0391
Application 08/225,229
Figure 6 does not teach that bulb device 28 (i.e., the "entertaining device") is within the lower
compartment. We disagree. Clearly, as seen in Figure 6, bulb 28 extends upwardly into the lower
compartment since the bulb breaks the parallel line extending in the horizontal direction from one
bottom circular edge 76 of the lower compartment to the other. Here again, as above in relation to our
discussion of claim 1, we agree with the examiner’s definition of the "lower compartment," and we find
that the lower compartment of Ditto meets appellant’s broad claim limitations.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ditto.
Rejection of Claims 22 and 26 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Runge and Von Kohorn:
At the outset, we note that the test for obviousness involves consideration of what the combined
teachings, as opposed to the individual teachings, of the references would have suggested to those or
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this light, appellant’s
argument (Brief, pages 9 to 10) that Von Kohorn fails to teach or suggest a transparent housing is not
found persuasive, since the examiner relies upon Runge to teach this feature. We find that the
combined teachings of the applied references would have taught or suggested the recited invention of
claim 22 on appeal to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. In other
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007