Appeal No. 98-2419
Application No. 08/675,193
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 2 to
7, all the claims in the application.
The claims on appeal are drawn to a tool for extracting
the base of a broken light bulb from a socket, and are
reproduced in the appendix to appellants’ brief.2
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Grinnell 1,319,028 Oct. 14,
1919
Wickbergh 1,899,489 Feb.
28, 1933
Hough 4,485,701 Dec. 4,
1984
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
on the following grounds:
(1) Claims 2, 3 and 5 to 7, unpatentable over Hough in view of
Wickbergh;
(2) Claim 4, unpatentable over Hough in view of Wickbergh and
Grinnell.
2In reading the claims on appellants’ disclosure, we note
that the language "each of said . . . flexible blade means"
(claim 7, lines 15 to 18), while supported in the drawing,
does not have antecedent basis in the specification, as
required by 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1). Also, the cross-hatching in
Figs. 1 and 2 does not correspond to the disclosure of the
handle as being made of hard rubber or plastic (cf. Hough Fig.
2).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007