Appeal No. 2005-1393
Application No. 09/751,609
we are in complete agreement with the examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied
prior art. Inasmuch as we fully concur with the examiner's
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as
his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by appellant, we
will adopt the examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the
rejection of record.
As explained by the examiner, Nagy, like appellant,
discloses a paintbrush holder comprising a clamp for engaging the
rim of a paint can, a magnet for engaging a ferrule of a
paintbrush, and a resilient member having a proximal portion
attached to the clamp and a distal portion attached to the
magnet. Appellant contends that vertical leg 24 of Nagy is rigid
and not resilient, as presently claimed. However, as noted by
the examiner, Nagy expressly discloses that member 24 is
"bendable" (column 1, line 52). While appellant maintains that
Nagy "uses the word 'bendable' to describe the permanent
deformation of the flat-faced metal strap from a straight line
into an L-shape" (page 2 of Reply Brief, first paragraph), there
is no factual support for such interpretation of the word
"bendable" used by Nagy. Contrary to appellant's argument, we
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007