Appeal No. 1999-0627 Page 6
Application No. 08/688,991
(18b). With regard to claim 3, the examiner finds that the
rear section tapers up (see left-side contour of the rear
section R) from the intermediate section to a maximum diameter
(D1) and thereafter tapers down (see right-hand contour of2
the section R) to a rounded end (16).
The appellants argue:
Claim 1 recites that the rear section is
slightly bulbous and angled slightly downwardly from
a handle axis, and is of a length and diameter to be
easily grasped between the palm of the hand and the
middle, ring and little fingers.
The rear section could not be deemed the sharply
angled end of the '615 patent, as it is too short
and may not be grasped by these fingers. The
combination of the tail end and the next handle
section could also not reasonably be deemed a slight
downwardly angled bulbous rear section.
Claim 3 further recites a tapering shape of the
rear section, which again cannot be reasonably read
on the tail end or the combined next and tail
sections, since they do not gradually taper up and
then down from a point adjacent the smaller
intermediate section to the handle end [brief, page
5].
We interpret the appellants' reference to "the sharply
angled end" and "tail" of Nunn to denote the downwardly
The examiner's reference to a maximum diameter "(D2)" of the rear2
section on page 3 of the answer appears to be an inadvertent error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007