Appeal No. 2003-1284 Page 14
Application No. 09/887,179
Phillips screwdriver bit 79) with a spoke wrench and a bicycle chain tool wherein the
spoke wrench and the bicycle chain tool pivot into Leatherman's channel-shaped
handles.
In view of above determination that the subject matter of claim 6 is obvious over
the applied prior art, we affirm the decision of the examiner to reject claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. In accordance with the appellant's grouping of claims, claims 7 to 11
fall with claim 6. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claim s 7 to
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Appellant's arguments
The appellant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been set
forth since there is no motivation or suggestion in the applied prior art to have modified
Leatherman to arrive at the claimed invention. We do not agree. As set forth above,
the teachings of the applied prior art clearly set forth the motivation and suggestion for
an artisan to have modified Leatherman to arrive at the claimed invention. That
motivation is to provide a multiple tool having both cross-jaw pliers and parallel-jaw
pliers and certain of the auxiliary tools useful to bicyclists. In our view, Leatherman's
multiple tool shown in the drawings is but one example of a multiple tool falling within
the teachings of Leatherman. Leatherman's disclosure is suggestive of providing
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007