Appeal 2007-0122
Application 10/358,626
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 985-86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis
omitted).
D. Analysis
Appellant has not convinced us of a reversible error on the part of the
Examiner.
As a first matter, Appellant has failed to convince us that the evidence
is insufficient to support the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion for
incorporating the deformable grip of McCall in the hairbrush handle of
Cousty. The suggestion to combine is evident in the nature of the problem
addressed by both references. While McCall is focused on writing
implements with a working tip and Cousty is directed to a hairbrush, the
problems the two references address are substantially the same: discomfort
and fatigue in the fingers due to the movement and pressure of the fingers
over the handle of the tool during its use (Fact Findings above). McCall, in
fact, expressly describes the deformable grip as an improvement over the
Cousty-type resilient grips. Instead of immediately returning to its original
shape when finger pressure is released (Cousty, p. 1, para. bridging cols. 1
and 2), the deformable grip retains its shape (McCall, col. 2, ll. 6-13 and ll.
38-44). According to McCall, the deformable grip increases comfort over
the prior art resilient grip because it eliminates the added fatigue caused by
the immediate springing back of the resilient material (McCall, col. 1, ll. 55-
65). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the
elimination of spring back would reduce fatigue in fingers grasping a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013