Appeal No. 2006-2074
Application No. 10/158,197
However, we consider the combination with Arnold and Bond to also be
proper. Bond teaches a method of labeling tools on the butt handle of the
tool (See figure 1-5). The label on the butt of the tool can indicate type of
tool, using either symbols or characters. See column 4, lines 29 through 33.
Further, Bond teaches that the purpose of the indicia is that when the tools
are in a tool belt/pouch, where the butt end is usually in the user’s line of
vision, the user can select the appropriate tool for the job. See column 5,
lines 57 through column 6, line 5. We find that this teaching shows both that
Bond is analogous art and provides suggestion to modify Sanelli’s knives.
As stated by appellants, on page 9 of the brief, prior art is analogous if it is
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved, in this case
both the invention, Sanelli and Bond are concerned with providing an
indication relating to the use of a tool which is visible to a user to aid in
selection of the proper tool for a given job. Further, we consider Bond’s
teaching that that the indicia facilitates selecting the proper tool, to provide a
suggestion to modify the knife of Sanelli. Contrary to appellants’ arguments
we find no indication that this would result in the user no longer being able
to determine the type of foodstuff with which Sanelli’s knife can be used.
We note that claim 36 recites “the first marking indicating at least the type or
length of the blade of the first knife”, claim 50 contains a similar limitation.
Thus, the claims do not require that the indication provide both type and
length of the blade. Bond’s teaching of a marking identifying the type of
tool, which in combination with Sanelli suggests indicating the type of knife,
meets the claim limitation. As such the examiner’s reliance on Arnold to
show marking tool size is overkill. For the forgoing reasons, we are not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007