Appeal No. 2002-1038
Application 09/122,022
Claims 1 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Parsons in view of Zimmerman, Hemming
and Beere.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 17 and 19) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 18) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Parsons, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses an
expandable baton 1 composed of a main section 2, which serves as
a handle, and two telescoping sections 10 and 11 (see Figures 1
and 2). The main section 2 is formed from a hollow tube and “is
covered by a padding material 3 to provide a comfortable, secure
grip (column 3, lines 50 and 51).
Implicit in the examiner’s explanation of the appealed
rejection (see pages 4 and 5 in the answer) is the concession
that Parsons fails to respond to a number of limitations in
independent claims 1, 7 and 17. To cure these admitted
deficiencies, the examiner turns to Zimmerman, Hemming and Beere.
The threshold issue in the appeal is whether these secondary
references are non-analogous art as urged by the appellant (see,
for example, page 2 in the reply brief).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007