Appeal No. 2006-3370
Application No. 10/444,736
examiner=s rejection, language that might be thought to limit the scope of the claims to
the argued feature.
The claims measure the invention. SRI Int=l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d
1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). We conclude that
appellant=s argument is based on an unclaimed feature, and thus not relevant in the
determination of whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established with
respect to representative claim 1.
With respect to the second ground of rejection, appellant argues that the
dimension of eight inches is critical in instant claim 10, which specifies dimensions of
the handle set forth by claim 7. For support, appellant refers to the instant specification
(at 4, ll. 13-15), which recites that Aexact lengths are essential to the invention.@
We find that the specification does state that A[t]he exact lengths are essential to
the invention@ at the noted section, but that the Aexact lengths@ are not referring to the
handle dimensions. Appellant has not demonstrated error in the conclusion of prima
facie obviousness of the subject matter of representative claim 10, nor shown any
criticality with respect to handle dimensions.
We have considered all of appellant=s arguments but are not persuaded of error
in the rejections. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Payne and Williams and the rejection
of claims 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Payne,
Williams, and Jondole.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013