Appeal No. 95-1635
Application No. 07/928,703
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Miki. The remainder of the claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites Ohmura, Miki and Maeno with regard to claims 1 through 7, 9
through 12, 15 through 25 and 30, relying only on Miki and Ohmura
with regard to claims 27 through 29.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the rejection of independent claims 1 and
15, it is the examiner’s position that Ohmura discloses all
aspects of the claimed invention but for the grip projection.
The examiner relies on Miki and Maeno to provide for this
deficiency, pointing to the grip projections shown in Figure 1 of
each of these secondary references, and concludes that it would
have been obvious to provide for such a grip projection in
Ohmura’s device.
While it may be arguable whether it would have been obvious,
without a direct suggestion to do so, to employ a grip projection
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007