Appeal No. 2002-2111
Application 09/664,674
a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). The
affirmance rested on our finding that “independent claim 1 is so
broad that it is fully met, i.e., anticipated, by Hill’s hand
truck 10” (decision, page 6).1
On rehearing, the appellants take issue with this finding,
focusing on the limitation in claim 1 requiring the claimed
material-handling device to comprise “curved handlebars extending
downwardly and also extend[ing] outwardly at an angle with
respect to a front plane of said frame assembly.” In reading
this limitation on Hill, we determined that Hill’s hand truck 10
comprised a frame assembly (body assembly 12) and “a pair of
curved handlebars (handle tubes 38 and arcuate handles 42)
extending downwardly and also outwardly (to the rear of the body
assembly 12) at an angle with respect to a front plane of the
frame assembly” (decision, page 6). The appellants contend,
however, that
the Board has associated the term “outwardly” with “to
the rear of the body assembly [of Hill],” suggesting
that the handles extend or curve toward or in the
direction of the rear of the body assembly. According
to this interpretation, however, it is unclear how the
1 The rejection of dependent claims 5 and 12 through 14 was
affirmed on the basis that the appellants did not challenge such
with any reasonable specificity, thereby permitting these claims
to stand or fall with parent claim 1 (see page 7 in the
decision).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007