Appeal No. 2002-1038
Application 09/122,022
handle tube as recited in dependent claim 12 for the self-evident
purpose of enhancing their movement-preventing function.
Although Beere’s groove 27 is actually one continuous spiral
groove, Beere makes it clear that this spiral groove in effect
embodies a plurality (twenty) of grooves. Furthermore, while the
appellant may be correct that the forces acting on Zimmerman’s
bat or Beere’s screwdriver which tend to cause cover slippage
differ from those acting on Parson’s baton, it is not apparent,
nor has the appellant persuasively pointed out, why this
circumstance would have deterred the artisan from appreciating
the non-slip benefits touted by Zimmerman and Beere as being
applicable to Parsons’ baton handle cover.
Hence, the appellant’s position that the reference
combination relied on by the examiner rests on impermissible
hindsight and does not account for all the limitations in the
claims is unconvincing, at least insofar as claims 7 and 12 are
concerned. To the contrary, the combined teachings of these
references support the examiner’s determination that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claims 7 and 12
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Dependent claims 8
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007