Appeal No. 2005-0211 4
Application No. 10/264,717
Rejection (1)
Appellant does not take issue with the propriety of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection on
the merits. Rather, appellant relies upon an amendment filed with her brief to overcome
the rejection. However, the examiner’s answer indicates that the amendment has not
been entered.
Therefore, since appellant does not contest the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection on the
merits, and since appellant’s amendment has not been entered, the rejection is summarily
affirmed.
Rejection (2)
This rejection is affirmed.
Initially, we note that appellant stipulates in her brief that the claims subject to the
rejection at issue stand or fall together for purposes of this appeal.2 Accordingly, we shall
limit our consideration to claim 1 in reviewing this rejection.
Sisler discloses a teaching aid in the form of a doll. See Sisler: column 3, lines
43-51. The body of the doll includes a head and torso, as well as arms and legs.
Accessories, i.e. indicia, such as facial and body features, clothing and other items may be
removably attached to the body using a “Velcro” type fastening system.
2 Indeed, appellant makes the same stipulation with regard to each of the rejections (and
associated claims) before us under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007