Appeal No. 1999-1754
Application No. 08/800,230
overcome. Not only is the structure recited in independent
claim 1 not explicitly taught by this reference, but we fail
to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rod
disclosed therein in such a manner as to meet the terms of
dependent claims 3, 5 and 7 which, of course, include the
structure of claim 1. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness
has not been established with regard to the subject matter of
claims 3, 5 and 7, and we therefore will not sustain the
rejection of these claims.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to claims 9 and
10, which are dependent from claim 1 and stand rejected as
being unpatentable over Strader in view of Sleight. The
secondary reference, which was cited for its teaching of
mounting a leverage feature on a separate piece attached
around the handle, fails to cure the defects in Strader
pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus, a prima facie
case of obviousness is lacking with regard to the subject
matter of claims 9 and 10, and we will not sustain this
rejection.
SUMMARY
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007