Appeal No. 98-1256
Application No. 08/599,934
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) based on the combined teachings of Loggins and Nichols.
Rejection (2)
The appellant does not appear to dispute the examiner's position that it would have been
obvious to attach the riser 32a (and hence the handle 34a) to the elongated member 24a which forms
the hypotenuse of Loggins's device in view of the teachings of Martin. Instead, the appellant argues
there is no suggestion in the prior art of an outrigger that extends from the elongated member at a
position intermediate its ends (as set forth in claim 15) or an elongated member that is sufficiently large
for a user to place a knee on a portion thereof while at the same time grasping the handle (as set forth in
claim 16). In our view, however, Loggins either teaches or fairly suggests these limitations for the
reasons that we have stated above in Rejection (1).
As to claim 17, the appellant broadly argues that the "handle structure of claim 17 is not found
in the cited prior art" (brief, page 9). We do not agree. The handles 34a of Loggins (see Fig. 3) and 8
of Martin (see Fig. 2) extend away from their respective risers in all directions and, accordingly, can
broadly be considered to have an "end" which extends away from the riser and away from the straight
edge. Accordingly, we
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007