Appeal No. 2005-1237
Application No. 10/227,631 11
20). Furthermore, the appellants have not advanced any cogent
explanation, and none is apparent, for the proposition that the
proposed modification of Koefelda in view of Apps would result
any significant change, deleterious or otherwise, in Koefelda’s
handle structure.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 4, 24 and 31, and
dependent claims 6 and 37, as being unpatentable over Koefelda in
view of Apps.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 5, 7, 26 through 30, 32 through 36
and 38 as being unpatentable over Koefelda in view of Apps since
the appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with
parent independent claims 4, 24 and 31 (see In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 4 through 7,
11 through 14, 18 through 24 and 26 through 38 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007