Appeal No. 1996-3880 Page 8
Application No. 08/305,441
While Muliterno does disclose windows or openings 9 so
that the decrease of ink in the pen may be observed, there is
no reason, absent hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's own disclosure, to modify Richardson to provide
the claimed "lateral cut-out exposing a portion of said lead"
since one can determine the amount of lead left in
Richardson's pencil just by observing the remaining length of
the pencil.
We have also reviewed Okumura and Beder but find nothing
therein which would have suggested the claimed "lateral cut-
out exposing a portion of said lead." Since the claimed
"lateral cut-out exposing a portion of said lead" is not
suggested by the teachings of the applied prior art, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REMAND
We remand this application to the examiner to determine
the patentability of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined teachings of a typical mechanical pencil and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007