Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
based on the merits of the rejection, but on technical grounds
relating to the indefiniteness of the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The last rejection for our consideration is that of
independent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Durfee in view of Nimtz, Periolat and Nishimura. In
reviewing the examiner’s rejection, on pages 4 and 5 of the
answer, the examiner is of the view that Durfee shows a clamp
having a detachable jaw (adapter bloc) which includes a
protective ledge 21 (Figure 1 of Durfee). The examiner views
Nimtz as teaching a beam clamp (10) having protective ledges
(26, 28); Periolat as teaching a threaded bore in a jaw to
receive releasable work piece clamping fixtures; and Nishimura
as teaching an adjustable clip assembly (10) to attach an
adapter block to a jaw with a threaded fastener (9).
With respect to appellant’s arguments on pages 12-13 and
15 of the brief, we agree with appellant in that the teachings
of Durfee, Nimtz, Periolat and Nishimura are from diverse art
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007