Appeal No. 2000-2033
Application 08/331,851
thereof, self retention upon firing, etc. The first three of
these benefits are expressly disclosed in Watkins’ disclosure.
With respect to claims 11 through 15, we are in agreement
with the appellant that the applied prior art of Kopp, Caron and
Watkins does not render obvious the provision of a thumb grip on
the latch as claimed in claim 11. We are cognizant of the
examiner’s argument that such a thumb grip is prevalent in the
art, but we are not convinced of the propriety of maintaining the
rejection due to the lack of an evidentiary basis thereof. For
this reason it is our conclusion of law that claims 11 through 15
would not have been obvious for the lack of any disclosure in the
references of a thumb grip.
SUMMARY
Rejections of claims 1 and 4 through 10 are affirmed. The
rejection of claims 11 through 15 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007