Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
one position to the other as well as to grip items with a
predetermined amount of force, thus reducing the chance of
mishandling." We note that this is a conclusory statement and
the Examiner offers no evidence to support such an assertion.
We do not find this contention being supported by the Belo
reference. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims over Wanger in view of Belo.
Rejection over Wanger in view of Belo and Hug
Claims 2, 7 to 9, 14, 19 to 21 are rejected under this
combination on pages 6 to 8 of the final rejection. However, we
note that Hug does not cure the deficiency noted above in the
combination of Wanger and Belo. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of the these claims over Wanger, Belo and
Hug.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007