Appeal No. 97-2911
Application 08/399,836
filed an amendment (Paper No. 8) canceling claim 9 and
amending claim 10 to include the subject matter of claim 9
therein. Accordingly, only the rejection of claims 3 and 10
remain before us for review.2
Appellants’ invention pertains to a double-ended flex-
handle wrench. Independent claim 10, a copy of which appears
in the appendix to appellants’ brief, is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Nakano 2,294,510 Sept. 1, 1942
Engquist 2,951,405 Sept. 6, 1960
Wendling 2,987,334 Jun. 6, 1961
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Engquist in view of Nakano and
Wendling.
Reference is made to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11) and
reply brief (Paper No. 13) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 12) for the respective positions of appellants and the
2Both the examiner (answer, page 2) and appellants
(brief, page 2; reply brief, page 2) appear to be of the view
that dependent claim 3 has been canceled. However, our review
of the record reveals that claim 3 remains pending.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007