Appeal No. 1999-0627 Page 9
Application No. 08/688,991
Therefore, the rear section (R) of the handle, as interpreted
by the examiner, appears to us to also be "slightly angled
down from said longitudinal axis" as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
With regard to claim 3, we have considered the
appellants' argument that the rear section (R) of the Nunn
handle, as interpreted by the examiner, does not "gradually
taper up and then down from a point adjacent the smaller
intermediate section to the handle end" but we do not find it
persuasive. As we see it, the rear section (R), as defined by
the examiner in the marked-up copy of Nunn's Figure 2 appended
to the answer, tapers up from a smaller diameter intermediate
section (I) to a maximum diameter, labeled D1 by the examiner,
and then tapers down (and angles downwardly) to a rounded end
(16).
Accordingly, we shall also sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The obviousness rejection
The examiner concedes that Nunn fails to disclose the
diameter of the rear section recited in claim 4, the inclined
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007