Appeal No. 97-1782
Application 08/112,426
even if the Polder concave curve were made more pronounced, as proposed by the examiner, it still
would be located at the rear surface of the "body portion" (as defined in the claim) rather than at the
rear surface of the rear handle depending therefrom.
Independent claims 6, 7 and 8 contain similar limitations and are likewise considered patentable
over Polder in view of Wright. As for independent claim 13, we find nothing in the Industrial Design
publication which would teach or suggest making the rear surface of Polder's depending rear handle
concave rather than convex. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejections of independent claims 1, 6
to 8 and 13, nor, it follows, of dependent claims 2 to 5, 14 and 15.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 8 and 13 to 15 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007