Appeal No. 96-1874
Application 08/215,467
and that leather is known to exhibit the elastic properties of
an elastomeric member [answer, pages 5-6].
In our view, the examiner’s factual findings are not
supported by the record in this case, and the examiner’s
rejection has failed to appropriately establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.
With respect to the question of the cantilevered
connection of the handle and whether the Haskins’ device
inherently possesses the property recited in claim 1, we are
constrained to agree with appellant that the examiner has
failed to support his case. Although the question should
properly be whether the property recited in claim 1 would have
been an obvious property to provide to the handle of a
protective cover, this question has never been addressed. The
obviousness issue got lost in the examiner’s position that
Haskins inherently has the property recited in claim 1.
We agree with appellant that there is no clear
indication in Haskins that the handle and cover have the
property recited in claim 1. The position that a force
applied on Haskins’ “handle” A would move a portion of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007