Appeal No. 96-1918
Application 08/196,931
Nishiwaki and Clark. Statements of intended use do not
serve to distinguish structure over the prior art when the
prior art structure can be used as claimed. Appellant does
not argue that the tower 62 of Clark and the grip case 35 of
Nishiwaki fail to meet the structural limitations of "having
sufficient length and width to accommodate at least three
fingers of a human hand curled about it when the wrist of
said human hand is positioned perpendicularly to said base
unit" or that the tower and grip case could not be used as a
handle as claimed. It is noted that claim 1 does not
recite: (1) any details of the shape of the handle; (2) the
amount of contact between the fingers and the handle; (3)
the placement of switches to be actuated by the fingers; or
(4) that gripping the handle with the wrist perpendicular is
the only way of gripping the device.
Appellant argues that the examiner erred in reasoning
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use Clark's device "any way he want[s] such as
grab[bing] the tower with his right hand and insert[ing] the
index finger into the finger hole for controlling the
movement of the belt" (Advisory Action, Paper No. 8,
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007