Appeal No. 1998-1188 Page 13
Application No. 08/628,556
Here, however, the appellant has made no persuasive showing
that the particular ranges set forth in claims 13 and 17 are
in any way critical or produce results which would be
unexpected.
Claim 16 calls for a handle movable from a radially
extended position for rotating the elongated pole to a closed
position substantially flush with the elongate anchor pole 12.
Hall shows a handle, such as 14, movable about a pivot axle
14a from a radially extended position for rotating the pole 12
to a closed position in which it is adjacent to the pole 12
(see col. 3, lines 29-37 and Figure 3). Webster's defines
“flush” as meaning “directly abutting or immediately adjacent
to.” Thus, Hall’s handle 14 is immediately adjacent the pole
when in the closed position.
In view of the above, we conclude that Hall and EP ‘675
provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to establish the prima
facie obviousness of claims 13, 16 and 17 and that UK ‘967 is
surplusage.
It follows that we will sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 13, 16 and 17.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007