Appeal No. 2000-0212
Application 08/914,477
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Having fully considered the record in
light of the arguments of appellants and the examiner, we
conclude that, for the reasons stated by the examiner, it
would have been obvious to modify the Travers toy car by using
a separate remotely-controlled motor for each wheel in view of
Oda’s disclosure thereof as being a conventional arrangement
for toy automobiles. The thus-modified Travers toy car would
meet all the limitations recited in claim 9.
We therefore will sustain rejection (1) as to claim 9,
and as to claims 1 to 4, which appellants group with claim 9
on page 5 of their brief.
Appellants separately argue rejection (1) as to claim 16,
which reads:
16. A toy vehicle comprising:
an elongated body having a frontal end and a trailing
end, said trailing end being free of wheels;
a pair of wheels rotatably supported by said body
substantially closer to said frontal end than said trailing
end such that said toy vehicle rests upon said wheels and said
trailing end; and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007