Appeal 2006-3282
Application 09/683,353
to claim 20, which claims the curved ends integrally molded to
each of the tubular members. We find the teaching includes the
writing utensils being “slidingly secured” in a side-by-side
relationship.
3. Examiner has further rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 as being
anticipated by Kirk. We find that Kirk presents the claimed
elements, when viewed consistently with the findings above in
#2. Kirk teaches a holder for pens, pencil and the like, which
the Examiner has chosen as another prior art teaching of the
claimed assembly. As the Examiner explains, element 10 can
be read as a clip member, configured with the structure as
recited in the claims.
4. Examiner has further, as expressed by Appellant, duplicatively
rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 as being anticipated by
Aaronson. Viewing Aaronson’s Figure 1 and the supporting
text in the patent we indeed find that the claimed elements are
present in that reference. The arguments expressed in Finding
#2 above are applied to the interpretation of the claims.
5. Examiner has rejected claim 17 for being obvious over the
combination of OMEGA® in view of Peterson. Examiner
proposes that OMEGA® teaches all of the claimed elements of
claim 17, except for means for controlling movement of the
“first and second” means. Peterson teaches a mechanism for
controlling such movement, in a casing we find to be similar to
that claimed by the Appellant. The holder of Peterson is for a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013