Appeal No. 200-0713
Application No. 09/494,935
measurement objectives of the patentee to be achieved as to the
taking of outside or inside readings. With the above in mind,
this panel of the board readily perceives that the applied
respective teachings of Knispel (Figs. 2 and 3; pull tab or end
stop maintaining concave tape shape) and Hoffman (Fig. 7;
T-shaped tab or end stop with hook or finger portions 450b), each
reflecting non-swingable end stops, would not have been
suggestive of replacing the swingable lever 32 of Anderson since
such a modification would clearly defeat the patentee’s intended
operation for the steel rule. For the above reasons, each of the
obviousness rejections is not sound and cannot be sustained.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.196(b), this panel of the board
introduces the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1 through 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based upon an original disclosure which
lacks descriptive support for the claimed invention.3 A review
3 That one skilled in the art might realize from reading a
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007