Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
would have combined the references to arrive at that
configuration (answer, page 25).
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 5, 26 and 30
over Cantatore in view of van Berkel and Walker.
Claims 10, 11 and 14
The examiner’s argument regarding claims 10, 11 and 14 is
the same as that set forth with respect to the rejections over
Reussenzehn, alone or in combination with van Berkel (answer,
pages 10-11). The rejection of claims 10, 11 and 14 over
Cantatore in view of van Berkel and Walker is reversed for the
reasons given above regarding the rejections over Reussenzehn,
alone or in combination with van Berkel.
Claims 6, 12 and 15
The examiner argues that in view of van Berkel and Walker
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide Cantatore’s handle with arcuate or curved surfaces as
a matter of aesthetic and ergonomic design choice (answer,
page 10). Van Berkel’s handle is not curved at its points of
attachment (figure 3). Walker’s handle is curved at its sole
point of attachment but, like Cantatore’s handle (figure 1), it
is attached at only one end (figure 1). None of the handles is
disclosed as being ergonomic, and the examiner has not explained
how a desire for aesthetic appearance would have led one of
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007