Appeal 2007-1870
Application 10/688,449
The issue before us is whether the combined teachings of Bond and Ohno
would have led one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
the hand tool as claimed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following :
The Specification describes the “inner” or “protected” surfaces of the
handles as follows:
It will be noted that the inner surfaces are in facing
relation. Also, in normal, one-handed use of the tool the
palm and fingers of a user's hand will wrap around and
contact the first and second planar surfaces and the outer
surfaces of the handles but they will not engage the inner
surfaces. For this reason the inner surfaces will be
referred to herein as protected surfaces. That is, since
each inner face is protected by the facing presence of the
opposite handle, the inner face is not subjected to wear or
abrasion from a user's hands. Furthermore, the protected
surface is less likely to have an adjacent tool in a
container lodged right next to it [Specification 3:[0008]].
Bond recognizes that in the art, artisans who use tools on a consistent basis
can waste considerable time attempting to pick the right tool type from among a
seemingly endless array of configurations for hand-held tools (Bond, col. 1,
ll. 12-14 and 40-44). Thus, Bond recognizes a need in the art for providing indicia
on tools to visually and tactilely indicate to the user the head type of a tool (Bond,
col. 2, ll. 31-33). Bond teaches that it is an object of his invention to indicate to the
user by sight or touch the configuration of the tool without having to view the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013