Appeal No. 1997-2790
Application No. 08/486,830
nonobviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 25.
Furthermore, independent claims 39 and 41 contain similar claim limitations and
appellants have not rebutted the rejections of these claims. Similarly, appellants have not
shown insufficient evidence by the examiner of nonobviousness or rebutted the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness with respect to
dependent claims 26, 31, 36, 37, and 38.
Appellants argue that the references alone or in combination do not teach or
suggest the claimed invention. (See brief at pages 3-5.) We disagree with appellants.
Appellants further argue that Hacker teaches away from the use of a handle. (See brief at
page 4.) We disagree with appellants. Appellants argue that the examiner has used
hindsight reconstruction and used appellants’ specification as a template. (See brief at
pages 4-5.) We disagree with appellants. Rather, we find that the language of claim 25 is
broad in the recitation of the limitation as to the structural orientation of the handle, and the
prior art combination teaches and would have fairly suggested the combination of
elements as set forth in the language of claims 25, 39 and 41.
We find that the examiner has set forth a brief explanation of the references and the
motivation for the combination. (See answer at page 5.) The examiner has further
elaborated upon the rejection in the response to appellants’ arguments. (See answer at
pages 5-7.) We agree with the examiner concerning the above-mentioned claims. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007