Appeal No. 2005-0583
Application No. 10/116,494
canister half would make a handle therefore “useless” and that
the examiner’s contrary view “is purely unsupported speculation”
(brief, pages 9 and 10). The appellant’s viewpoint is not
persuasive.
We are convinced that an artisan would have been fully aware
of the functions performed by a handle and would have been
motivated to provide the Wilkes or Hayes upper canister half with
a handle in order to obtain these functions. Moreover, contrary
to the appellant’s belief, the size or weight of this upper
canister half would not have rendered a handle “useless.”
Rather, an awkward and ungainly size or weight of the canister
half would have especially motivated the above discussed handle
provision. This is because the manipulation-assisting function
of a handle would have been particularly desirable on a canister
half that is awkward or ungainly due to its size or weight.
For the above stated reasons, we also hereby sustain the
examiner’s section 103 rejections of claim 5 as being
unpatentable over Wilkes or Hayes.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007