Appeal No. 2005-0211 8
Application No. 10/264,717
Oswald and Van Meter show stuffed figures having elongate appendages or strands
extending from the lower portion of the body of the figure. Oswald, in particular, shows
that the appendages constitute braided strands of material. Oswald is specifically referred
to by Van Meter (column 1, lines 14-23).
Appellant points out that Natiw is directed to puppets or dolls having human-like
features whereas the figures shown in Oswald and Van Meter are more animal-like.
Accordingly, appellant urges that there would have been no motivation to combine the
references since the braided strands of the secondary references would detract from the
human-like appearance promoted by Natiw.
We find the appellant’s argument unpersuasive since a finding of obviousness does
not require that the inventions of the references be strictly physically combinable. Rather,
it is sufficient that the teachings of the references, if taken collectively as analogous art,
would suggest doing what the appellant has done. In re Billingsley, 279 F.2d 689, 691,
126 USPQ 370, 372 (CCPA 1960); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385,
389 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to the rejection at hand, the three applied references relate to the
same art, i.e. stuffed toy figures, either dolls or puppets. To incorporate a feature, shape
or configuration from one figure into the body of another would have been prima facie
obvious as a matter of routine or design choice absent a showing of some new or
unexpected result.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007