Appeal No. 1999-0718
Application 08/594,149
rejections, but on technical grounds relating to the indefi-
niteness of the appealed claims.2
In summary, the examiner's rejections of claims 1
through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103
have been reversed. A new rejection of claims 1 through 6
2As mere guidance to the examiner and appellant, we note
that it does not appear that Hanneman, Eramo or Carter dis-
closes or teaches “needle-like, tapered pointed projections,”
as required in appellant’s claim 1 on appeal. Hanneman de-
scribes the projections (14) pointed to by the examiner as
“penetrating tangs or the like” struck-out from the flat
portion (12). Nowhere in Hanneman do we see the lateral
extent of the tangs (14). As for the projections (66) in
Eramo, these elements are specifically described as being
“dull pins” or teeth and as being larger and blunter in pro-
file than the teeth of the tack strip (23). In Carter, it is
clear from Figures 2 and 3 that the projections or jaw ele-
ments (16) are not “needle-like, tapered pointed projections.”
In addition, we point out that claim 1 requires “fastening
means for affixing said array to said handhold,” and that the
examiner should treat such limitation in accordance with
Sections 2181-2183 of the Manual of Patent Examining Proce-
dure. For appellant’s part, it should be noted that the
claims on appeal are drafted using the transitional term
“comprising,” thus making the claimed subject matter more
open-ended and not exclusive of other additional, unrecited
elements such as those noted by appellant in the arguments on
pages 3-6 of the brief. We also note the patent to Uccellini
(4,226,349) of record, and that the carton grip seen therein
would appear to differ from that set forth in appellant’s
claims 1, 3 and 4 on appeal only in that the projections (14a)
of the grip are not “needle-like.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007