Appeal No. 2004-1319
Application 09/933,329
is used alone. While the wrench (20) of Parker can also
optionally be used in conjunction with a detachable, existing
T-handle spike wrench like that seen in Figure 4A, the T-handle
is clearly not part of the wrench (20) and is not required to be
used with the wrench (20). Thus, appellant’s arguments
concerning the purported failings of Parker and the failure of
the combined disclosures of Fuca and Parker to disclose all
features of the claimed invention are in error and not
persuasive.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fuca in
view of Parker. As for claims 2 through 8, 10 through 14 and 16,
also rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
the collective teachings of Fuca and Parker, given appellant’s
grouping of claims set forth on page 10 of the brief, it is our
determination that those claims will fall with independent
claim 1.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10
through 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fuca in view
of Rosenbaum, we note appellants’ arguments on pages 13-16 of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007