Appeal No. 97-1394
Application 08/500,178
34 will be similarly considered as a single group, apart from
the group rejected under § 102.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection of claim 29
on appeal in light of the arguments of the appellant and the
examiner. As a result of this review, we have determined that
claim 29 is anticipated by the Mills reference. Therefore,
the
rejection of claim 29, and claims 21, 22, 25, 26 and 32
grouped therewith, is affirmed. The applied prior art of
Mills and Distiso does not establish the prima facie
obviousness of
claims 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33 and 34. Therefore, the
rejection of these claims is reversed.
It is our finding that Mills discloses a nut holder
attachment for a double-ended wrench. With reference to
Figure 5, Mills discloses a handle grip 20 of plastic or other
material which is sufficiently resilient to allow it to be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007