Appeal No. 97-1394
Application 08/500,178
Thus, Mills contemplates both a movable wrench handle in the
sense that
the handle may be removed and snapped on the same wrench or a
different wrench in another position while also contemplating
a predetermined frictional fit to avoid wobble or movement
between the handle grip and the wrench. The embodiment of
Figure 5 of Mills clearly anticipates appellant's
representative claim 29.
Appellant argues that the handle grip 20 of Mills is
not contemplated as sliding on the handle of Mills. Even if
this were true, we note that sliding or moving longitudinally
on the wrench handle is not claimed in independent claim 29.
All claim 29 requires is a movable wrench grip, and Mills'
grip is movable in the sense that it can be snapped off and
snapped on at a different position or on a different wrench.
With respect to claims 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33
and 34 rejected under § 103, we are in agreement with
appellant that the toothbrush prior art patent of Distiso is
directed to art nonanalogous to that of the wrench of Mills.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007