Appeal No. 2005-0911 Page 3
Application No. 09/923,113
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the brief and reply
brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we shall sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 17-24 as being
unpatentable over Tindall in view of McCall.
Tindall discloses shears comprising handle loops 6, 7 provided with tubular
cushions each including a tube 5 composed of elastic material, such as india rubber.
According to Tindall (the sentence bridging pages 1 and 2), the tubular cushions “may
be filled with air at atmospheric pressure, or at any greater pressure, as may be desired,
thus giving the cushion tubes any desired resistance, the same as pneumatic tires, or
air tubes for other purposes.” The purpose of the cushions is to “protect the hands of
the user” (page 1, lines 22-23). The examiner concedes that Tindall lacks a viscous
medium enclosed by the outer surface (tube 5) as called for in claim 14.
McCall discloses a deformable grip for a writing instrument responsive to user
fingertip pressure to assume a highly comfortable and low fatigue geometric
configuration. The deformable grip 16 comprises a cylindrical sleeve 28 of a thin
rubber-based or deformable plastic or other elastomer material enclosing a recessed
cavity 22 filled with a relatively viscous putty substance 30 for accommodating fingertip
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007