Appeal 2007-2558
Application 10/205,948
FF 16, 17). Thus, Appellants’ argument does not address the rejection as set
forth by the Examiner. Moreover, even if were we to interpret the handle as
a base, the toothed edge is positioned at the end of the tubular handle which
extends outwardly and radially from the handle base; thus, the toothed edge
is in fact extending radially outward from either the base 162 (where each
toothed edge occupies a different radial position) or the handle shown in Fig.
11 (where the edges are located at the end of the radial arm).
With respect to claim 5, Appellants contend that “it further recites a
handle radially aligned with the fixed member of the ring holder. Although
this embodiment may have a somewhat greater resemblance to the
instrument of Hoogeboom, it still recites the “peripheral edge” limitation or
the “plurality of fingers” limitation of claim 1” (Br. 6). We agree with
Examiner’s finding that Hoogeboom describes a handle that is axially and
radially aligned with the fixed jaw member as shown in Fig. 12 (Answer 5).
Appellants have not identified a defect in this reasoning and we find none.
With respect to claims 7 and 8 reciting “peripheral edge” and
“plurality of fingers,” Appellants have not identified any defect in the
Examiner’s findings (Answer 5; FF 17) that Hoogeboom describes these
elements, and we also find none.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7,
and 8. Claims 2-4, 6, and 9-12 fall with them because separate reasons for
their patentability were not provided.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013