Appeal No. 2004-0119
Application 08/644,170
the anodic coating specified in appellants’ claims on appeal, the
examiner notes that “Ogden discloses that an anodic coating of
30-40 micrometers (0.001 in -0.0015 in) thickness is preferred.”
The examiner also contends that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized any particular
thickness of anodic coating since it has been held that where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art
discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
skill in the art.
Appellants argue, and we strongly agree, that given the
disparate nature of the various references applied by the
examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no
reason or suggestion to combine Mino with Klingler, Zelenka and
Ogden in the particular manner urged by the examiner so as to
arrive at appellants’ pliers-type crimping tool as defined in the
claims before us on appeal. More specifically, it is our view
that even if it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to provide the
crimping tool of Mino with a pair of crimping elements formed
integrally on each jaw, based on teachings derived from Klingler,
so as to allow the crimping tool therein to form a double crimp
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007