Appeal No. 2005-0211 9
Application No. 10/264,717
Rejection (7)
This rejection, based upon the combination of Sisler with Maiden-Nesset, is
affirmed.
The claim at issue requires that the leg member terminate in a shoe having tieable
laces.
Maiden-Nesset show this expedient used on a doll for educational purposes, i.e. to
teach a child how to manipulate such items of wearing apparel.
Appellant argues that Maiden-Nesset is not combinable with Sisler since, according
to appellant, the Sisler doll is intended exclusively for enhancing artistic expression.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive since, as noted by the examiner, the doll of
Sisler is not intended to be used solely to enhance artistic expression. Sisler (column 3,
lines 43-51) explicitly teaches that the doll can be used for educational purposes, and the
doll even has shoes which may be adjusted or removed (column 3, lines 4-6).
Thus, Sisler and Maiden-Nesset are quite compatible with respect to intended use.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious, within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to
equip the doll of Sisler with shoes having tieable shoelaces to enhance its educational
value, as suggested by Maiden-Nesset.
Rejection (8)
This 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, based upon Sisler alone, is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007