Appeal No. 2003-0673
Application 09/795,307
proposing to modify the O’Malley handle 20 in view of the Weck
handle 44. Suffice to say, however, that there is nothing in the
combined teachings of the two references which would have
suggested providing O’Malley’s apparatus with a handle as set
forth in claims 5 and 6.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 5 through 7 as being unpatentable
over O’Malley in view of Weck.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 through 8 is
affirmed with respect to claim 8 and reversed with respect to
claims 5 through 7.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007