Appeal No. 2001-2353
Application No. 09/411,370
suggestion or incentive for the examiner's proposed modification
of the single-chuck mechanical pencil of Kageyama. Nor does the
fact that certain of the prior art double-chuck pencils included
improvements to such pencils to reduce waste lead, as noted on
page 1 of appellants' specification, provide any basis for
modifying the single-chuck mechanical pencil of Kageyama in the
manner urged by the examiner. Like appellants, we find that the
examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, and for that reason we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Kageyama.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is that
of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Torii. In this instance, the examiner contends, inter alia,
that Torii discloses a double-chuck mechanical pencil having a
front lead chuck (15) and a back lead chuck (7) connected to a
lead tank (8). Appellants argue that the lead holding member
(15) of Torii is not a chuck and clearly would not have been
recognized as such by one of ordinary skill in the art. We agree
with appellants and incorporate herein their arguments set forth
in the brief (pages 17-23) and reply brief (pages 6-7) as our
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007