Appeal No. 2000-2087 Page 7
Application No. 09/039474
to the head. Nor is such apparent from the drawings. Thus, the issue arises as to whether
the disclosure complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. This situation is further
clouded by the fact that claim 1 recites “a protection ring surrounding said handle and said
head at the point of attachment” (emphasis added), which differs from the above-quoted
recitation in the specification as well as the manner in which this limitation was expressed
in claim 1 as originally filed (“said hammerhead being attached to a handle and a
protection ring surrounding said handle at the point of attachment”). The examiner should
make a determination with regard to the adequacy of the disclosure with respect to the
protection ring.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 as being unpatentable over Palomera in view of
Newbrough is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
The application is remanded to the examiner for action in the three matters set forth
above.
This application, by virtue of its "special" status, requires an immediate action,
M.P.E.P § 708.01(d). It is important that the Board be informed promptly of any action
affecting the appeal in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007