Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the base reference
(McRae) with a series of discontinuities on the engagement
surface and a truncation in the spheroidal body as taught by
Schmalz and Linsalato. However, we are compelled to reverse
the examiner's rejections of claims 60-62 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 because the teachings of Schmalz and Linsalato do not
provide any teaching or suggestion of the "directional
retention structure" that we find lacking in the basic
combination of McRae and Thomas.
Next we turn to the rejections of claims 63-65 and 67-70
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Looking first to the examiner’s
rejection of appellant’s independent claim 63 and dependent
claims 64-65, 67, and 70 under § 103 based on McRae and
Linsalato, we note that the examiner’s position is that McRae
discloses an implement (30) usable by a person afflicted with
arthritis. The implement being formed of a resilient elastic
material and comprising a substantially spheroidal handle.
What the examiner finds lacking in McRae with regard to the
claimed subject matter is that “McRae fails to teach the
implement being usable with a key” and also “fails to teach
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007