Appeal 2007-1870
Application 10/688,449
problem of wear being solved by the claimed invention. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (“any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed”).
In the case of Ohno’s hand tool, the tool does not have a blunt end, but
rather a tapered end. Thus, the surface of Ohno’s handle most closely facing in the
upward direction, and thus most easily visible to a user when the tool is in a tool
belt, is the convex end portion of the inner surface of each handle. Applying the
indicia, as taught in Bond, to the convex end portion of the inner surface of the
handles of Ohno’s tool would have been an obvious improvement to Ohno’s tool,
because it would improve Ohno’s tool in the same way as it improved the pliers in
Bond, and application of the technique would not have been beyond the skill of
one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As such, the combination of Bond and Ohno would have rendered obvious
the features of independent claim 1, 6, and 11. In particular, Bond and Ohno
would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to a hand tool having, inter alia,
inner surfaces convex relative to one another at least at an end portion adjacent the
free end and indicia located on the convex end portion of the inner surface of at
least one of the handles (claims 1 and 11) and a hand tool having handle portions
convex relative to one another at least at an end portion adjacent the free end,
having protected surfaces facing one another on the convex end portion, and an
indicia located on a protected surface of at least one of the handles (claim 6).
Appellant has not presented any arguments as to the separate patentability of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013