Appeal No. 2004-1493
Application No. 09/932,777
not perpendicular but rather parallel with the sleeve and handle
thereby not allowing the prior art systems to create the raking
motion as disclosed and claimed herein" (page 7 of Brief, second
paragraph). However, it is Rios that discloses a sleeve for the
groover tool which extends outwardly from the blunt upper edge of
the tool in a generally perpendicular arrangement therewith. As
for the claim recitation that "the curved sharpened lower edge of
the groover tool portion has a radius of curvature slightly less
than half the length of the central rake portion between the pair
of outer rake portions," it would have been a matter of design
choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to select any
particular radius of curvature, absent a showing of a particular
advantage associated therewith. Also, it would seem that the
modification of Rios' straight edge 22 to a curved edge would
ordinarily result in a radius that is generally like the one
claimed.
As noted above, appellant bases no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007