Appeal No. 97-4185 Page 14
Application No. 08/602,274
of the examiner to reject claim 3, as well as claims 4 and 12
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 5 to 7
Dependent claim 5 adds to parent claim 1 the limitation
that holding means for securing a glove are located on the
thumb element adjacent the spring member.
The examiner stated (answer, p. 4) that "the use of
protrusions for better gripping is considered an obvious
expedient known in the art."
The appellants argue (brief, p. 13) that the examiner's
position is totally unsupported by the record. We agree. In
that regard, the examiner has not provided any evidence that
establishes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
protrusions (i.e., holding means) on the thumb element
adjacent the spring member. The mere existence of protrusions
for gripping does not, in and of itself, establish the
obviousness of the claimed holding means. Thus, the examiner
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007