Appeal No. 2000-0820 Page 6
Application No. 08/978,625
analyzing claims “[u]nder § 103, the . . . differences between
the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained .
. . .”
The examiner relied on White as a base reference for each of
the combinations set forth in his rejection. According to the
examiner, White provides a showing of the ratchet wrench,
extender and socket as set forth in the claim. Appellant’s
claim on appeal requires the ratchet wrench to have “a disk-
shaped head with a top circular face [and] a bottom circular
face . . . .” However, White clearly shows non-circular,
oblong top and bottom
faces on the second end extent. Furthermore, neither of the
extenders 16 and 18 shown in White has a second end extent
having a cylindrical configuration with the same diameter as
the diameter of the first end extent as set forth in the
claim. As recognized by the examiner, White also lacks any
teaching or suggestion of a grooved gripping surface on every
outer surface of the wrench assembly.
Having identified the differences between the primary
reference to White and the claim at issue, we now continue our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007