Appeal No. 97-2911
Application 08/399,836
examiner with respect to the merits of this rejection.
The only claim limitation argued by appellants as
patentably distinguishing the claims over the applied prior
art is the requirement of claim 10 that the handle of the
wrench includes a pair of ergonomic gripping surfaces in the
form of bulbous portions. Specifically, claim 10 calls for a
handle having a pair of opposing forked arms connected by
bridge means at each end thereof, “and a pair of bulbous
portions, each said bulbous portion positioned near one of
said bridge means to provide additional ergonomic gripping
surfaces for controlling and maneuvering said double-ended
flex-handle wrench.”
The examiner has taken the position on the penultimate
page of the answer that the enlarged portions 2 and 3 of
Engquist’s wrench can be broadly construed as the claimed
“bulbous” portions.
This position is not well taken. First, the enlarged
ends of Engquist’s wrench as a whole (i.e., the forked end 4
and 5, the bridge portions joining the forked ends, and the
tapered transition portions joining the bridge portions to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007