Appeal No. 2000-0212
Application 08/914,477
arguments are not persuasive, because they do not relate to
the invention claimed in claim 10, nor do they address the
basis of the rejection stated by the examiner. Nothing in
claim 10 or its parent claim 9 requires the claimed vehicle to
be invertible, or precludes it from being self-righting. We
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill would
derive from Terzian a teaching of making a toy vehicle
operable on water as well as land by making it buoyant and
providing means on its drive wheels to propel it in water, and
that it would have been obvious to apply that teaching to
other toy vehicles, such as the toy car of Travers.
Rejection (2) will therefore be sustained.
Rejection (3)
George, like Oda, discloses a remotely controlled toy
vehicle in which each drive wheel 18, 20 is driven by a
separate drive motor 22, 24, and for reasons similar to those
discussed in relation to rejection (1), supra, we consider
that the subject matter of claim 9 would have been obvious
over the combination of Travers and George.
Appellants argue that “Travers clearly rejects toy
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007