in the finished product, thus cushioning the connection of the handle to the cup body. This feature reduces breakage or chipping during use of the cups.
3. Claims 1 to 13 call for the product, whereas claims 15 to 17 recite the method of manufacture. Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative, and read as follows:
1. As an article of manufacture, an article of dishware comprising a body of ceramic material and a separately formed appendage secured thereto, a pad of cured elastomeric material interposed between and secured to adjacent surfaces of said body and appendage, said pad being of sufficient thickness to permit limited relative motion of said appendage with respect to said body.
15. The process of handling a ceramic cup comprising the steps of forming, firing, and glazing a cup body of ceramic clay, forming a separate handle portion, joining said handle portion with a sufficient thickness of uncured elastomeric material to permit limited relative movement of said handle with respect to said body, and then curing said elastomeric material.
4. The previously known subject matter relied upon by the Patent Office in denying plaintiff's application were the following United States Patents:
Weckerle 1,742,625 Jan. 7, 1930
Klayf 2,099,741 Nov. 23, 1937
Watkins 2,618,959 Nov. 25, 1952
Somerville 2,909,204 Oct. 20, 1959
(filed Oct. 23, 1953)
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.