Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
areas and that combination of the references is questionable
at best. Moreover, even if the combination proposed by the
examiner were to be deemed proper, we agree with appellant’s
argument (brief, pages 11 and 13-15) that the combination of
Durfee, Nimtz, Periolat and Nishimura fails to teach an
adaptor configured to be secured to the jaw of a beam clamp
assembly, having a work piece engaging surface with a
protective ledge extending integrally therefrom and having a
connector for releasably attaching a work piece clamping
fixture to the adaptor as set forth in claim 24. Upon
reviewing Durfee, we note that Durfee includes an adapter
block or plate (20) with a connector (41, 36) for releasably
attaching a work piece clamping fixture (21) to the work piece
engaging surface (25) of the block or plate (20). Contrary to
the examiner’s position, the adaptor of Durfee does not also
include "a protective ledge which extends integrally from the
workpiece engaging surface" as required in appellant’s claim
24 on appeal. If the structure (21, 41, 36) of Durfee were to
be read as being a "protective ledge which extends integrally
from the work piece engaging surface of the adaptor block" as
in appellant’s claim 24, then the adaptor of Durfee would have
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007