Appeal No. 2004-1168
Application 09/884,518
locator or stud finder. See page 7 of the brief. The Examiner responds that the use of
a stud sensor and drill in combination is a matter of common knowledge and common
sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art.
We find that Hibbard teaches an accessory for temporary storage and retrieval
of drill paraphernalia comprising bits, screw bits, and an assortment of products
made for drills. See Hibbard, column 1, lines 12-15. Hibbard’s accessory comprises
an accessory housing 1 and an attachment member 14-16 for detachably mounting
to the drill housing 17 as seen in Fig. 4. However, Hibbard does not teach or suggest
other accessories besides bits that would be used in the Hibbard’s drill chuck. The
Examiner has not provided any evidence as to why one of ordinary skill would have
modified Hibbard’s bit holding accessory to be able to hold other accessories such
as the Heger’s stud sensor. Without an objective teaching or suggestion of the
combination of Hibbard and Heger, the Examiner has not satisfied the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we have affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and reversed the rejection of claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007