Appeal No. 2004-0526
Application No. 09/981,975
substantially the same curvature throughout the axial direction of
the wrench opening (see column 7, lines 29-33, and the showing of
R3 in Figures 6 and 7), that R2 as seen in Figure 6 is greater than
the R3, and that R2 as seen in Figure 7 is less than R3. Based on
the above disclosure, the reasonable inference can be drawn that at
some point along the axial direction of the wrench opening, R2 and
R3 are of equal length.
The examiner should (1) evaluate the patentability of the
appealed claims in light of the above discussion regarding the
Figures 5-7 embodiment of Colvin, (2) determine whether the
appealed claims patentably distinguish over the Figures 5-7
embodiment of Colvin, either alone or in combination with other
prior art the examiner may be aware of, and (3) take whatever
action is deemed appropriate in light of (1) and (2).
Summary
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the
matter discussed above.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007