Appeal No. 1999-0627 Page 12
Application No. 08/688,991
Accordingly, as the appellants have not offered any
specific argument or evidence rebutting the examiner's finding
of obviousness, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to claims 6 and 7, the appellants argue that Nunn does
not show or suggest the claimed cross sectional shapes and
further asserts that these features create a thumb rest on the
handle (brief, page 5). We do not agree with the examiner
that the flattened sides and rounded rectangular cross
sections of the forward and intermediate sections of the
appellants' handle solve no stated problem. As noted, for
example, on page 3 of the appellants' specification, the top
of the forward section is "flattened for secure engagement
with a user's thumb." Accordingly, we cannot agree with the
examiner that the cross sectional shapes of the forward and
intermediate sections can be dismissed as mere design choice
within the skill of the art.
In making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis
and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007