Appeal No. 2003-0918 Page 10
Application No. 09/395,659
Claims 2, 6 and 8
The appellants have grouped claims 1, 2, 6 and 8 as standing or falling
together.3 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 6 and 8 fall with
claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 6 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claim 9
We sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 9 adds to parent claim 84 the further limitation that an interior surface of
the handle (i.e., the hollow elongated member) comprises a plurality of ridges and
trenches.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 5) that the examiner has not specifically
addressed the limitations of claim 9 and that none of the references disclose an interior
surface of the handle comprising a plurality of ridges and trenches.
3 See page 2 of the appellants' brief.
4 Claim 8 recites that the exterior surface of a hollow elongated member (i.e., the handle)
comprises a plurality of ridges and trenches substantially parallel to one another. As such claim 8 would
not be anticipated by Hoult.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007