Appeal No. 1997-2248
Application No. 08/378,513
in view of Kipp;
b) claims 14 through 18 as being unpatentable over Bonnes
in view of Cooper and Flonc;
c) claims 9 through 12 and 14 through 18 as being
unpatentable over Lucas; and
d) claim 20 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of
Lucas.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 15) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.1
Bonnes, the primary reference in the first two
rejections, discloses a composite handle for
1Although the examiner mentioned Cooper in the
explanation of the first rejection (see page 5 in the answer),
she did not include Cooper in the statement of the rejection.
Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether
or not in a minor capacity, there is no excuse for not
positively including the reference in the statement of the
rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ
406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we have not considered
the teachings of Cooper in reviewing the merits of the first
rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007