Appeal No. 1998-0502 Page 5
Application No. 08/571,323
With respect to the Group A claims, with claim 1 as the
representative claim, the Examiner reasons that Wright teaches
the claimed tool socket for turning a fastener nut. However,
Wright’s nut fastener, which could be a wire nut fastener
(connector), does not have the closed end, open end and outer
surface as claimed. Since this is the typical structure of a
wire nut connector, as known in the art and supported by Blaha,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have used the Blaha nut connector with the Wright tool.
With regard to the connector being deformed by a predefined
torque, the Examiner reasons that it would be common knowledge
that the connector would deform when excess torque is applied.
(Answer-page 4.)
Appellant admits that it is well known to have deformation
when excess torque is applied. However, Appellant argues that
such a torque level would vary randomly from connector to
connector and is not the claimed “predefined level”. Such an
undefined torque level would result in hazardous damage, which
is what is being avoided by the current invention. (Brief-page
5.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007