Appeal 2007-3299
Application 10/747,011
1 contends that Bouligny avoids the use of a gripping mechanism that is
2 abrasive or ploughs the tubing being gripped. Weatherford further contends
3 that the principle of operation in gripping utilizing grit is different than the
4 principle of operation taught by Bouligny. (Appeal Br., 12). Additionally,
5 Weatherford contends that Jansch requires pinned elements for point contact
6 for gripping whereas Bouligny “leads away” from utilizing such point
7 contact. (Appeal Br., 12-13). As summarized in Weatherford’s Reply Brief,
8 Weatherford contends that the proposed modification of Bouligny would
9 change the principle of operation of the friction grip. Weatherford’s
10 Evidence Appendix does not direct the Board’s attention to any evidence to
11 support Weatherford’s contentions.
12 We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
13
14 ISSUE
15 The issue is whether Weatherford has shown that the Examiner erred
16 in rejecting the claims. Specifically, the issue is:
17 Has Weatherford demonstrated that the Examiner was incorrect
18 in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
19 reason to form a gripping arrangement having a flexible
20 member that is at least partially coated with grit?
21
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013