Appeal No. 2000-2087 Page 6
Application No. 09/039474
(1) Claim 1 includes the limitation that the shank portion of the hammer be “square
shaped.” Without question, hammers are among the oldest tools used by man, and have
been applied to accomplish a multitude of general and specialized tasks. It thus would
seem quite probable that hammers having shanks of various configurations other than
round, including square ones, are known in the prior art. However, as was pointed out
above, there is no evidence of record regarding this claimed feature. The examiner should
determine whether such evidence exists and, if so, revisit the matter of the obviousness of
the square shaped hammer shank recited in claim 1.
(2) The appellants have admitted in their specification that the magnet specified in
claim 1 is a known type. This being the case, the examiner should determine whether such
a magnet has been utilized in the prior art in hammers or in situations which would suggest
their use in hammers and, if so, revisit the matter of the obviousness of the use of the
claimed magnet to hold nails in a notch in the head of a hammer.
(3) On page 3 of the appellants’ specification it is stated that
[a] handle 13, attached to the head, is enclosed in a protection ring 14 to
provide a more secure connection between the head and the handle and to
prevent damage to the head on impact (emphasis added).
However, the specification is devoid of details of the construction of the protection ring and
the manner in which it is mounted to the handle and/or the head, as well as how it provides
a more secure connection between the head and the handle and how it prevents damage
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007