Appeal No. 98-1256
Application No. 08/599,934
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
In view of the foregoing we will sustain the rejection of claims 22, 24, 25 and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Loggins, Nichols and Anderson.
Rejection (5)
The appellant broadly argues that there is nothing which would suggest attaching the handle of
Anderson to a drafting tool (presumably that of Loggins). However, as we have noted above in
Rejection (4), we are of the opinion that a combined consideration of Loggins and Anderson would
have fairly suggested to the artisan to provide the drafting device of Loggins with a handle as shown by
Anderson in Fig. 3 in order to achieve Anderson's self-evident advantage of providing for a better grip.
It is also the appellant's contention that there is no suggestion in the references of providing a handle on
the outrigger which extends at an acute angle; however, we disagree for the reasons set forth above in
Rejection (4) with respect to claim 28.
In summary:
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007