Appeal 2007-1870
Application 10/688,449
The Examiner rejected claim 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bond in view of Ohno, or alternatively, Ohno in view of Bond. Appellant
seeks our review of this rejection.
ISSUE
Appellant contends Bond provides no disclosure or suggestion of the need to
protect the indicia from wear, and as such, there is no motivation in Bond to alter
the location of the indicia from the butt or terminal end or from the side surfaces
shown in Bond (Appeal Br. 6, 9). Appellant further contends that Bond teaches
away from relocating the indicia to the inner or protected surfaces of the handles,
because doing so would obscure the view of the indicia from above (Appeal Br. 7).
Appellant also contends Ohno fails to cure the deficiency of Bond (Appeal Br. 6),
and Ohno fails to disclose convex inner surfaces (Appeal Br. 8).
The Examiner found that Bond discloses indicia (68) and (69) disposed on a
convex inner surface of the handle, i.e., mid-portion; however, the convex inner
surfaces do not face each other (Answer 5). The Examiner further found that the
convex surfaces near the free ends of Ohno’s handles are inner or protected
surfaces because these surfaces face each other and are not meant to be grasped
during normal usage (Answer 7-8). The Examiner noted the fact that Appellant
has recognized another advantage, i.e., protection of the indicia from wear, which
would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art, cannot be the
basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious
(Answer 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013