Appeal No. 2002-1276
Application 09/405,971
Note that this merely changes the handle location so
that the blade may be used for slicing more easily
[answer, pages 2 and 3].
In the same vein, the examiner argues that “with knowledge
of Cremonese and Alexander and when presented with the problem of
cutting bat[t]s one would obviously conclude that [the] grip of
Cremonese should be moved to the back of the blade as shown by
Alexander” (answer, page 4).
Cremonese and Alexander, however, do not mention, address or
otherwise contemplate the problem of cutting insulation batts.
Although this problem may have been recognized in the prior art
as discussed in the background section of the appellants’
specification, the examiner has not properly cited and relied on
such prior art knowledge in formulating the rejection.1
Moreover, even if such prior art knowledge were properly applied
in support of the rejection, the examiner’s evidentiary showing
would still lack any suggestion or motivation to use the knife
disclosed by Cremonese to cut insulation batts, or to reposition
or replace the Cremonese handle in view of Alexander for this or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007