Appeal No. 1998-0502 Page 7
Application No. 08/571,323
Appellant argues that Wright teaches away from the present
invention in that it is designed to avoid deformation of the
connector. (Brief-page 5.)
We agree with the Examiner’s position. Even though Wright
teaches to avoid deformation of a connector, Wright is cited as
illustrating that excess torque will deform a connector.
Appellant only claims using a predefined torque to deform a
connector. The Examiner, through Wright, has illustrated that
such a predefined torque is excess torque.
On page 6 of the brief Appellant questions the motivation
to combine Wright and Blaha. We again agree with the
Examiner’s position, “...it is known in the art to use a hand,
a manual socket or a power not driver to twist a wire-nut
connector for connecting the wire ends.” (Answer-page 7.)
Also, we need only look at Appellant’s disclosure for further
affirmation that it would have been obvious to use such a tool
on nuts/fasteners. On page 1, lines 22-25, it states:
In this application, electricians typically twist on
the connectors by hand, although manual tools, such
as a hexagonal socket wrench or a nut driver, can be
used.
And on page 2, lines 1-5 it states:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007