Appeal No. 96-0563
Application 07/540,839
Considering next the rejection of appealed claims 30 and
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Plungis in
view of Bubb, we note that the examiner takes the position
that Plungis discloses a wrench assembly having all the
elements recited in appealed claims 30 and 31 except that the
jaw assembly is not open ended, and this position is not
disputed by appellants. The examiner has also taken the
position that open ended wrenches are conventional, citing the
patent to Bubb as evidence of this fact. Appellants again do
not dispute this position, but in fact agree, as indicated on
page 5 of the brief. Appellants do, however, dispute the
conclusion of the examiner that one having ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to form the wrench of
Plungis to be open ended in order to enable the wrench to
laterally engage a workpiece having an axially inaccessible
end. In this regard, appellants argue that such modification
is "neither shown or suggested by the references" (brief, page
5).
In addressing appellant's argument that the prior art
must contain something to suggest the desirability of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007