Appeal No. 2001-2361
Application No. 09/411,369
examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Torii will not be sustained.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Torii, we share appellants'
view as expressed on page 19 of the brief, that Torii does not
disclose or teach a mechanical pencil with both a front lead
chuck and a back lead chuck, as required in independent claim 1
on appeal, and that the examiner has offered no motivation for
modifying the mechanical pencil of Torii to have such a double-
chuck arrangement. Accordingly, since claim 2 depends from claim
1, it follows that the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under the
alternative grounds noted above will likewise not be sustained.
The last of the examiner's rejections is that of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Torii in view of
Ch 274,269. In this instance, the examiner contends that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide the front end portion of the adapter (10) of Torii with
taper portions following the teachings of CH 274,269.
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007