Appeal No. 2001-2353
Application No. 09/411,370
own. In that regard, it is clear to us that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that a "lead chuck" must
actually clamp the lead and hold it in a fixed position during
use of the pencil for writing, and that the member (15) of Torii
performs no such function. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Torii will
also not be sustained.
In summary:
The examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
has not been sustained.
The examiner's decision rejecting claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has likewise not been
sustained.
In addition, the examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and
2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama, and
claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Torii have both been reversed.
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007