Appeal No. 96-3463
Application 08/514,835
pivotal movement about the pin 34 against the cam
surfaces 32, 33. Thus there is a small degree of
pivoting as compared to the passive jaw 26. This is
the claimed improvement over appellant's prior patent.
[Answer, page 4.]
We will not support the examiner's position. We observe
that the manner and circumstances under which the passive jaw
26 and active jaw 27 (both of which carry gripping dies affixed
thereto) of Schulze-Beckinghausen are moved, as well as for what
purpose, are less than clear. With respect to the passive jaw
26, even though this jaw is illustrated in Figs. 1, 3 and 5 as
being attached to the "third" piece 25 by an unnumbered bolt via
an arcuate slot 127, the sole explanation given by Schulze-
Beckinghausen with respect to this arrangement is that:
The third piece 25 carries a passive jaw 26 which
is slidably mounted on the third piece 25 within the
confines of a slot 127. [Column 3, lines 51-53.]
It is unclear from this explanation, however, whether the passive
jaw 26 is "slidably mounted" simply for adjustment purposes and
then the bolt is tightened or whether the bolt and slot is a
loose connection which allows the passive jaw 26 to move or self-
align "slidably" during the pipe-gripping operation. It is also
not altogether clear as to the exact nature of the movement of
the active jaw 27 in the embodiment of Fig 1. of Schulze-
Beckinghausen (upon which the examiner apparently relies)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007