Appeal No. 2001-1787
Application 09/374,122
Since Handweller clearly does not teach or disclose an
article comprising a plurality of sections wherein each section
incorporates a “fingerwalk labyrinth” for use by one person, we
agree with appellant that Handweller does not anticipate the
personal communication tool set forth in claims 1 through 4 on
appeal, and, accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained.
As for the rejection of independent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Sprowls, we observe that claim 5 addresses a
method of using “a personal communication tool comprising at
least two sections, each section incorporating a fingerwalk
labyrinth for use by one person.” The method includes the steps
of a) the one person gaining access to a fingerwalk labyrinth in
one section, b) placing a finger within a peripheral end of a
groove defining a labyrinth, and c) fingerwalking the path at
least toward a center point of the labyrinth.2
2 While “the path” in claim 5, line 9, has no express
antecedent basis, in accordance with appellant’s disclosure at
page 4, we understand the path and the groove defining the
labyrinth to be one and the same (i.e., continuous groove 15).
As can be seen clearly in Figures 2 and 3 of the application, the
continuous groove (15) provides an elongate, winding path from
the periphery of appellant’s tool to the center point (18) of the
labyrinth.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007