Appeal No. 97-0088
Application No. 29/015,807
projection from the blade as taught by Gallagher (answer, p.
3). We do not agree. First, we see no suggestion of why one
skilled in the art would have modified Hyde's wall scraper in the
manner set forth by the examiner. Second, even if Hyde's wall
scraper were modified by the teachings of Gallagher, it would not
have resulted in the overall design claimed by the appellant. We
share the appellant's view (brief, p. 4) that the applied prior
art designs do not teach and would not have been suggestive of a
planar blade having a central tooth extending forwardly of a
linearly straight working edge. In that regard, it is our
opinion that the visual impression of how appellant's linearly
straight working edge flows inwardly from each side to the
forwardly extending central tooth (as shown in the upper portion
of Figures 1, 5 and 6) is significantly different from the visual
impressions of Gallagher's tool (shoulders 5 extend from each
side at a 45° angle to the forwardly extending central tooth 4, 6
as shown in Figures 1 and 3) and the wall scraper of
Hyde (linearly straight working edge flows from side to side
without interruption). Finally, we agree with the appellant
(brief, p. 4) that, at best, the applied prior art would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007