Appeal 2007-1584
Application 10/689,337
rejection of claims 6 and 15. These two claims additionally comprise “a
handle” with a “loop hanger.” Gottlieb discloses a tool with a handle and
“hanger apertures” at the extreme end of the handle (Gottlieb, col. 3, ll. 50-
53).
Appellant does not argue this limitation is missing from the prior art
teachings but rather relies upon his prior arguments relating to the
combination of DeArmond and Weisgerber. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 15 for the reasons previously given
(see supra pp. 2-4).
Claims 10 and 19
In addition to DeArmond and Weisgerber, the Examiner relies upon
Pace, U.S. Patent 6,848,341 B2 (Feb. 1, 2005) to support his § 103(a)
rejection of claims 10 and 19. Claims 10 and 19 additionally require the tool
to be “integrally formed from a composite material.” According to the
Examiner, Pace discloses a tool made from 4140 steel, a “composite
material” (Answer 8). “Composite” is not defined in the Specification and
thus is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Graves, 69
F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed.Cir.1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (en banc).
We define “composite” to mean: “A mixture or mechanical
combination on a macro scale or two or more materials that are solid in the
finished state, are mutually insoluble, and differ in chemical nature.”
Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary 302 (11th ed. 1987). This
definition is sufficiently broad to include at least some alloys.
Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s finding regarding 4140
steel. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 19.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013