Appeal No. 2000-0212
Application 08/914,477
do not agree. In the first place, the Travers toy is intended
to resemble “any actual commercial vehicle” (col. 2, line 5),
such as “real automobiles” (col. 2, line 27); it would not do
so if modified so that its wheels projected beyond the front
of the body. Secondly, the Travers and George vehicles are so
different in their intended manner of operation that we do not
consider that one of ordinary skill would have taken George’s
disclosure of forwardly-projecting wheels, to allow it to
climb walls, etc., as a suggestion to provide that feature on
the toy car of Travers.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 14,
or of claim 15 dependent thereon. Also, since claim 5 also
requires forwardly projecting wheels, we will not sustain the
rejection of that claim, or of dependent claim 6.
Rejection (3) of claim 16 will be sustained. George
discloses that motors 22, 24 have sufficient torque to invert
the vehicle (col. 5, line 65, to col. 6, line 10). Therefore,
when utilizing such motors in the Travers toy car, they
presumably would have sufficient reaction torque to flip the
body, pivoting the trailing end of the body over the wheels.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007