Appeal No. 96-3463
Application 08/514,835
We will not support the examiner's position. As we have
noted above in the rejection of claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22,
23 and 25 under § 103, it is the teachings of the prior art which
must suggest the desirability of the proposed modification. It
is true that, as a broad proposition, Wheeler and Inoue both
employ one fixed jaw die and one movable jaw die; however, the
movable jaws of both Wheeler and Inoue move rectilinearly along
an angular path. Wheeler is directed to a pipe wrench wherein
the movable jaw moves rectilinearly in order to accommodate "a
different sized pipe or fitting" (column 1, lines 33 and 34).
Inoue is directed to an adjustable wrench that can be used as
both "a crescent and pipe wrench" and wherein the movable jaw
moves rectilinearly for the purpose of gripping objects
"irrespective of the geometric configuration of the object" (see
column 1, lines 48-53). On the other hand, Hauk teaches that
both gripping dies should be mounted for rotation through
relatively large angles in order to achieve the advantage of high
stress concentration and thus prevent slippage (see column 9).
Absent the appellant's own teachings we are at a loss to
understand why one of ordinary skill in this art would have been
motivated to seek out the broad teaching of one movable gripping
die (which moves along a rectilinear path) and one fixed gripping
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007