Appeal No. 2001-1898
Application No. 08/835,945
does not disclose that the bar 6 has "cylindrically curved" ends,
as claimed, but takes the position that (answer, page 6):
Fox (US Patent 1,096,235), discussed above, teaches
a similar device wherein the bar 10 having a transverse
bore 11 for receiving a fastener 12 therethrough is
provided with the cylindrically curved first and second
ends (see Fig. III) for conforming to and flushing with
the cylindrical outer surface of the member 7 to
prevent snagging thereon.
Therefore, as evidenced by Fox, in the event a
cylindrical handle is to be utilized, it would have
been well within the purview and obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to enhance the overall effectiveness of the
device of [Stenberg] by providing the bar with the
corresponding cylindrically curved first and second
ends to conform to and flush with the outer surface of
the cylindrical handle to prevent snagging thereon.
Appellants argue, first, that this rejection was improperly
made for the first time in the final rejection. This question
can be given no consideration by this Board, since it is not
within our jurisdiction; rather, it is reviewable by petition
under 37 CFR § 1.181. MPEP § 706.07(c); Ex parte Jackson,
1926 C.D. 102, 104 (Comr. 1924).
Appellants further argue that Stenberg and Fox are non-
analogous art. As stated in In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether
prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from
the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007