Appeal No. 2001-0074
Application 09/039,829
addition of other elements which materially affect this function. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion that Claim 1 does not comply with 35 U.S.C. §112, first
paragraph, as the as-filed specification does not provide adequate written descriptive
support for this claim.
We, therefore, affirm this rejection.
The Section 103 Rejection
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stevens in view of Bryant and Klugmann.
The Examiner has found that Stevens teaches all of the claimed elements except
for:
(a) handle 1 being coupled to applicator 5 to permit selective adjustment of
handle 1 relative to edge 6 between positions in opposite directions with respect to a
plane normal to edge 6; and
(b) a detent means to hold handle 1 in a selected position. (Examiner’s Answer,
page 3, lines 10-19).
The Examiner has found that Bryant teaches a handle attached to an applicator
within which is a supply of tape and a surface, arranged for pressing tape against a
surface to apply the tape. The Examiner has further found that the handle is coupled to
the applicator to permit selective pivotal adjustment of the handle about a point relative
to the surface of roll between positions included in opposite directions with respect to a
plane normal to the surface of roll. The handle has a lock to retain the handle in the
selected position. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, lines 20-26).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007