Appeal No. 2006-0679 Page 3
Application No. 09/997,934
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the following determinations.
We note, at the outset, an inconsistency in the examiner’s decision, as
articulated on page 4 of the answer, to withdraw the rejection of independent claim 29
as being unpatentable over Koll in view of Willems and to maintain the like rejection of
claim 30, which depends from claim 29. This inconsistency is of no real consequence in
our decision as, for the following reasons, we have determined that the rejection of the
examiner cannot be sustained with respect to any of the claims.
Each of appellant’s claims 1-12 and 30 recites a sprung surface handle
comprising, inter alia, a base plate having an edge, a handle and a raised handle
protecting part, on said base plate, between an edge of the base plate and at least one
arm of the handle (or between an edge of the base plate and the handle, as in claim
30). Claims 1-12 additionally recite a handle-mounting plate on the base plate. The
examiner considers Koll’s bracket plate 5 to respond to the handle-mounting plate
recited in claims 1-12 and has determined that Koll lacks the mounting plate mounting
the handle to a base plate and the base plate having raised handle-protecting parts.
The examiner somehow finds suggestion to modify Koll to provide these lacking
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007