Appeal No. 2001-0099
Application No. 09/042,431
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, the teachings of the
applied prior art references, the Brekke declaration (Paper
No. 9) supplied by appellants, and the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. Having reviewed
all of the evidence before us, we make the determinations
which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Mesenhöller in view of Kentish, we
note that Mesenhöller discloses a first ratchet wrench
embodiment (Figures 1-5) having an operating head 3 pivotably
coupled to a handle 2 including a handle shank 1 provided with
two angular slots 16, 17 and a rod 9 disposed within a bore
(guide channel 8) and joined to an annular slider 15 enclosing
the handle shank by means of a diametral pin 14 passing
through the slots. To change the angularity of the handle
relative to the head, the user draws back the slider 15
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007