Appeal No. 2001-0074
Application 09/039,829
We do not see the motivation for placing the pivot point of the instantly claimed
invention between the handle (which must contain the tape reels) and the applicator tip.
This claimed arrangement would appear to add substantially to the complexity of the
device and raise issues regarding providing the tape from the reels to the tip, when such
could be avoided by keeping the reels closer to the tip and placing an adjustable handle
outside the tape supply.
While we agree that Bryant does disclose the inclusion of an adjustable handle to
allow rotation of the handle to any necessary position (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines
1-1), this reference does not show the location of the pivot point between the tape
dispenser and the applicator edge.
Accordingly, as a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, we
shall reverse this rejection. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, is
sustained.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 USC §103(a) is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007