Appeal No. 2000-0852 Page 6
Application No. 09/061,314
From our perspective, even assuming, arguendo, that Hanahan is analogous art
and that suggestion to combine the references exists, the resulting structure would not
meet the terms of claim 1. We arrive at this conclusion because the handle of the admitted
prior art as modified by Hanahan still would not have an extension arm that “automatically”
pivots to “hang downwardly” from the lever arm. In this regard, consistent with the
specification, we interpret the limitation “automatically pivoting” to mean that the extension
pivots under the influence of gravity (page 7), and “hang” downwardly to mean that it is
suspended from a point with free motion within given limits (see also Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 527). In the Hanahan arrangement, the
extension does not pivot with respect to the lever under the influence of gravity, but is urged
to an overlapping position by a spring, regardless of its orientation. It also does not “hang”
downwardly from the lever. In fact, given the “normal” position described by the patentee
(page 1, lines 38-43), it is the Hanahan lever that hangs downwardly, with the extension
oriented upwardly.
It is our conclusion that the combined teachings of the admitted prior art and
Hanahan fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 1, and we therefore will not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 or of claims 3-6, which depend therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007