Appeal No. 1999-1754
Application No. 08/800,230
top portion.” Thus, one of the requirements of claim 1 is
lacking in Strader. Furthermore, it also cannot be determined
that the rear protuberance is so located as to be engaged by
the side of the hand when grasping the handle in the operating
position, also as required by the claim. Finally, the manner
in which the user’s hand is shown as engaging the handle in
Strader’s Figure 1 is not the “palm grip” recited in claim 1,
and it would appear that the reel is too far from the grip
portion of the handle to allow the rear protuberance to be
engaged by any part of the hand if the hand were to be
positioned so that the thumb is on top of the reel, as is
required by the “palm grip.” Thus, this structural
relationship also is not disclosed by Strader.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner
to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007