Ex parte FIGUEROA - Page 6

          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                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007