Appeal No. 2001-1402
Application 09/287,838
stand erect on top of Gourley’s outer member 4.
The remaining arguments concerning claims 12, 17 and 18
are repetitive of those addressed above.
In view of the foregoing, rejection (4) will be
sustained.
Rejection (5)
Handzlik discloses an attachment for a shoe, including a
base member 8 with a clip 18 for attachment to, inter alia,
laces 17 (col. 3, lines 47 to 52). Removably attached to a
post 7 on the base member is an antenna 3, to which may be
secured “an amusement or ornamental device such as a ball 9,
flower, pompon or the like” (col. 3, lines 12 to 15). Each of
the rejected claims requires, inter alia, a figurine.
Although Handzlik does not disclose a figurine, the examiner’s
position is that (final rejection, page 6):
It would appear to be an obvious design choice for the
object [of Handzlik] to be a figurine inasmuch as a
number of different object[s] appear to be suitable in
carrying out of the basic concept of the invention. This
view is buttressed by applicant’s disclosure which does
not reveal that the use of the specific figurine solves
any particular problem and/or yields any unexpected
results. Moreover, it
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007