Appeal No. 2002-1035 Page 2
Application No. 09/333,166
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an insulating hand tool and a method of
making an insulating hand tool. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Rosenburg 2,804,894 Sep. 3, 1957
Steiner et al. (Steiner) 5,105,648 Apr. 21, 1992
Markwart et al. (Markwart) 5,309,798 May 10, 1994
Habermehl et al. (Habermehl) 5,351,586 Oct. 4, 1994
Kruesi 5,359,911 Nov. 1, 1994
Gringer 5,638,727 Jun. 17, 1997
Pearson (UK patent specification) 1,251,419 Oct. 27, 1971
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that appellants, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and Pearson.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and either Markwart or Habermehl.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007