Appeal No. 2004-1319
Application 09/933,329
along the uniform diameter outer surface so as to enhance the
grip of a user when the outer surface of the tool is to be
manually gripped as taught or suggested in Parker or Rosenbaum,
and to also make the wrench of Fuca from a polymeric material as
suggested in either Parker or Rosenbaum.
On page 10 of the brief, appellant has denominated claims 1
through 8, 10 through 14 and 16 as constituting issue A, and
specifically indicated that such claims “stand or fall together
with respect to issue A.” Accordingly, we have selected claim 1
as being representative of issue A, and will decide the appeal
with regard to the claims listed under issue A on the basis of
claim 1 alone. Claims 2 through 8, 10 through 14 and 16 will
thus stand or fall with claim 1.
Concerning independent claim 1, appellant argues the
examiner’s two alternative rejections noted above separately. On
pages 12 and 13 of the brief, appellant argues the § 103
rejection based on Fuca in view of Parker. In particular,
appellant points out that Fuca does not disclose, teach or
suggest a tool having “a uniform outside diameter from its first
end to its second end,” and contends that Parker fails to make up
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007