Appeal No. 1999-0718
Application 08/594,149
handhold. However, we note that in arguing the examiner’s
rejection based on Hanneman, appellant has urged (brief, page
4) that Hanneman discloses “no offset flat surface opposite
the handhold,” notwithstanding that the flat surface of the
portion (12) of the gripping element in Hanneman (Fig. 1)
facing the box (24) is clearly spaced from, or offset from,
the handle portion (10) of the gripping element. Thus, given
appellant’s argument, we are at a loss to understand exactly
what definite meaning should be ascribed to the “offset”
language of claim 1 on appeal, and thus, for this additional
reason, consider that the subject matter of claim 1 is indefi-
nite.
As a further point, we observe that the needle-like,
tapered pointed projections of the array set forth in claim 1
on appeal would not be “angled from said flat surface” (empha-
sis added) as the claim states, but would instead appear to be
part of the array which is affixed to the flat surface of the
handhold, thereby making the needle-like projections a part of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007