Appeal No. 1998-1188 Page 4
Application No. 08/628,556
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Rejection (I)
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 8 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hall in view of UK ‘967. After considering the
collective teachings of the applied prior art, we agree with
the appellant that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner describes Hall as showing: a pole 12 having,
at one end thereof, an elongated spike and a single blade 16;
a pivot member 14a; and a handle 14. The examiner
acknowledges that Hall does not show a handle configured to
conform to the outer surface of the elongated pole when the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007