Appeal No. 2005-0211 5
Application No. 10/264,717
Appellant argues that her claims define a doll-like product which is distinguishable
from that of Sisler in that the claims require that arm and leg members be attached to the
head of the doll rather than to the torso. We disagree.
As noted by the examiner, Sisler defines a doll’s body as inclusive of a head and a
torso. Thus, the arms and legs of Sisler’s doll can reasonably be said to be attached to the
doll’s body. Consequently, appellant’s “body member”, as claimed, can broadly, but
reasonably, be said to embrace or read upon the combined head and torso configuration
of Sisler which includes a pair of eyes.
In no sense can claim 1 be said to exclude a doll configuration where the body
includes both a head and torso portion, with arms and legs extending from the torso, as in
Sisler. Claim 1 refers to neither a head nor a torso, and does not explicitly require that
arms and legs extend from a head.
Rejection (3)
The rejection is affirmed.
Natiw discloses a stuffed, flexible product which can be used as either a puppet or a
doll.
Appellant argues that indicia, e.g. hair, ears, are permanently fixed, i.e. sewn or
stitched, to the Natiw puppet doll, rather than being “removably attached”, as claimed.
According to appellant, the stitching of Natiw could not be undone without adversely
affecting the integrity of the doll.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007