Ex Parte Tobako - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2004-0299                                                        
          Application No. 09/932,543                                                  

               9. A hand tool, comprising:                                            
               a shank having a proximal end joined to an operational head,           
          the shank including an elongated groove;                                    
               a slidable sleeve having an internal channel, the sleeve               
          sized to receive the shank, the sleeve defining a set aperture;             
               a set disposed in the set aperture and positioned to bias              
          into the elongated groove, the set preventing sliding between the           
          shank and sleeve when tightened and the set allowing sliding                
          between the shank and the sleeve when loosened; and                         
               a selective lock relating between the sleeve and the shank,            
          the lock preventing separation of the sleeve and the shank when             
          the sleeve and shank are in rotational alignment, the lock                  
          allowing separation of the sleeve and the shank when the sleeve             
          and shank are out of rotational alignment.                                  
               The references set forth below are relied upon by the                  
          examiner as evidence of obviousness:                                        
          Prichard            2,869,410           Jan. 20, 1959                       
          Tremblay            3,227,015           Jan.  4, 1966                       
          Raber               5,109,737           May   5, 1992                       
               Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tremblay; claim 6 stands                
          correspondingly rejected over Tremblay in view of Prichard;                 
          claims 4, 9-13 and 15-20 stand correspondingly rejected over                
          Tremblay in view of Raber; and claim 14 stands correspondingly              
          rejected over Tremblay in view of Raber and further in view of              
          Prichard.1                                                                  

               1 On page 3 of the brief, the appellant has grouped claims             
                                                                  (continued...)      
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007