Appeal 2007-0787
Application 10/689,230
1 Connell. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198
2 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). .
3 The Examiner’s finding that the subject matter of Claims 1 and 5 are
4 anticipated is reversed.
5 Since the rejections of the remaining claims all rely on Tokarz as
6 describing the “more fragile” limitation, we reverse the rejection of Claims
7 2-4 and 6-11 also.
8 NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
9 We enter a new ground of rejection of Claim 1. Claim 1 is rejected
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tokarz. Tokarz describes a handle assembly
11 as part of a faucet including a shank (base 20) and handle (lever or handle
12 body 22).16 The handle 22 may be made of a material including “metal such
13 as chrome or brass, wood, porcelain or plastic.17” Tokarz is silent as to the
14 material of the shank or base portion 20. However, the use of metals for the
15 base and other parts of the faucet is ubiquitous. One having ordinary skill in
16 the art would recognize, as noted by the Examiner, that the shank portion is
17 likely to be a metal such as chrome plated brass. It would have been
18 obvious to use the typical metal base with any of the handle materials
19 described by Torkarz, including porcelain and plastic. Porcelain and plastic
20 are materials more fragile than metal. Applicant’s Claim 1 encompasses
21 subject matter (e.g., a faucet lever with a metal shank or base and a porcelain
22 or plastic handle) which would have been obvious to a person having
23 ordinary skill in the art from Tokarz’s teachings.
16 Tokarz, Figure 1 and 2:32-48.
17 Tokarz 1:56-59.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013