Appeal No. 1998-3423 Page 2
Application No. 08/584,962
OPINION
The appellants’ invention relates to a folding combination tool. The following were
the rejections before us on appeal, all of them under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1-6, 12, 13 and 15-18 on the basis of Frazer in view of Newton.
(2) Claim 14 on the basis of Frazer in view of Newton and Pullman.
(3) Claims 1, 4-6, 12, 13 and 15-18 on the basis of Frazer in view of Schmidt.
(4) Claim 14 on the basis of Frazer in view of Schmidt and Pullman.
In our decision, we sustained all of the examiner’s rejections, thereby affirming the
examiner’s decision. A key factor in each of the rejections was modification of the Frazer
combination tool by causing the handles to move in opposite directions between the
nested position and the deployed position, rather than in the same direction, as disclosed,
based upon the teachings of Newton or Schmidt. The appellants argue in the Request for
Rehearing (Request) that the Board erred in five respects, the second of which focuses on
the propriety of this modification. The appellants pointed to passages in column 3 of
Frazer as support for their position that Frazer’s invention does not work unless the
handles fold in the same direction (Request, pages 6 and 7). While this point was raised
on page 6 of the Appellants’ Brief, we have revisited this issue in the light of all of the
arguments presented in the Request, and now find ourselves in agreement with the
appellants’ position. Our reasoning follows.
Frazer discloses a combination hand tool with a pair of pliers jaws operated by
handles. A plurality of additional implements are pivotally stowed within each of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007