Appeal No. 1999-2765 Page 4
Application No. 08/752,396
A toy building comprising:
a bracing structure (1), said bracing structure (1)
comprising columns (3) and girders (4) which locate walls
and room divisions of the toy building;
at least one substantially planar wall element (5);
and
a plurality of fittings,
wherein said bracing structure (1) and said at least
one wall element (5) are provided with complementary
coupling means (6, 7) for releasable coupling of said at
least one wall element (5) to said bracing structure; and
wherein said at least one wall element (5) and said
fittings (8) are provided with complementary coupling
means (9, 10) for mounting of said fittings (8) on said
at least one wall element (5).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established when
the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In considering the question of
the obviousness of the claimed invention in view of the prior
art relied upon, we are guided by the basic principle that the
question under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007