Appeal No. 97-1782
Application 08/112,426
A principal argument made by appellant is that Polder's handle is convex curved rearwardly,
rather than concave. The examiner disagrees, stating that "as best seen in Figures 1 and 3, [Polder]
clearly discloses the rear surface of the rear handle is concaved rearwardly" (answer, page 4).
However, while Polder unquestionably shows a concavity in the rear surface of grip 12 (e.g., as shown
in Fig. 3), we do not consider that the concave curve recited in the claims is readable thereon. Looking
at claim 1, for example, in relation to the Polder device, there is recited "a body portion axially aligned
with the longitudinal axis of said working shaft." Since Polder's "working shaft" is member 14, the
portion of Polder's grip 12 which corresponds to the claimed "body portion" would be the part of the
grip which is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of member 14, and, since the concavity at the rear
surface of Polder's grip is in line with or slightly above the longitudinal axis of member 14, the concavity
is located in the "body portion" of the Polder device. Claim 1 further recites "a thenar fitting concave
rear handle depending downwardly from the rear of said body portion." Polder does not disclose this
limitation because, as discussed above, Polder's concavity is in the rear of the "body portion," rather
than below it. The rear of the handle which depends downwardly from Polder's "body portion" is
convex, not concave, and therefore does not satisfy the "concave rear handle" limitation of claim 1. The
Wright reference does not render the recited structure obvious, for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007