Appeal No. 2001-1198 Page 7
Application No. 09/233,899
The obviousness rejection of claims 14 and 15
We have reviewed the reference to Edwards additionally
applied in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 15
but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies
of Chow discussed above. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of appealed claims 14 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 5, 7 to 13 and 19
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 7 to
13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miller in view of Wright.
In this rejection, the examiner ascertained (answer, p.
4) that Miller's pliers/tool shown in Figures 6-9 taught all
the subject matter of claim 1 except for (1) a spring means
secured to said intermediate portion of the first plier member
for urging the pawl member into a generally concentric
relationship with the generally arcuate rack during the
initial movement of the handle portions toward each other to
grasp the workpiece and for urging the plurality of second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007