Appeal No. 2001-1787
Application 09/374,122
In the rejection (final rejection, page 3), the examiner has
not pointed out where in Sprowls we might find a communication
tool “comprising at least two sections, each section
incorporating a fingerwalk labyrinth for use by one person,” as
set forth in appellant’s claim 5. Instead, it appears the
examiner has merely attempted to read the steps of appellant’s
method on the method of using the blocklike elements (10) of
Sprowls for teaching handicapped or blind and retarded children
to understand and make letters and numbers. Since the examiner
has not accounted for the structure of the specific personal
communication tool recited in and involved in appellant’s method
claim 5, for this reason alone, we are justified in refusing to
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
As a further point, we note that claim 5 requires a user to
place a finger “within a peripheral end of a groove defining a
labyrinth.” In appellant’s tool, the groove defining a labyrinth
is continuous groove (15), which groove begins at the periphery
of the tool and provides an elongate, winding path from the
periphery of the tool to the center point (18) of the labyrinth.
Thus, we understand the “peripheral end of a groove defining a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007