Appeal No. 2001-0074
Application 09/039,829
The Examiner thus concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided in Stevens a handle
coupled to the applicator to permit selective adjustment of the handle about a point
relative to the edge because Bryant teaches that such allows the user to rotate the
handle to any necessary position. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, line 26 – page 4, line
4).
Klugmann is relied upon for the teaching of a pivoting handle at a point 16
relative to brush 14 attached to head 11 using disks 17 and 18 of head 11 in
combination with item 21 of handle 12. Handle 12 is retained in a selected position
using a detent means formed by cooperating ridges and depressions between disk 17
and item 21. Detent means holds handle 12 and head 11 firmly in position after
rotation. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 8-13).
The Appellant does not challenge the disclosures of the references, nor the
propriety of the combination. Instead, he argues that the problem faced by the inventor
was the creation of a tape dispenser which could be used conveniently by both right and
left handed people and therefore Klugmann, being omni-directional in use, is not
reasonably pertinent to the left-hand, right-hand problem. Without Klugmann (as non-
analogous art), it is reasoned, no prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Appeal Brief,
page 3, line 28 - page 4, line 11).
As we agree with the Appellant that no prima facie case of obviousness exists,
we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007