Appeal No. 1999-2086
Application 08/692,062
Coope et al (Coope) 4,046,364 Sep. 6, 1977
Stiltz et al (Stiltz) 4,265,435 May 5, 1981
Lee et al (Lee) 5,284,331 Feb. 8, 1994
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 34, 35, 37 through 39 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Stiltz in view of Coope, and claim 6 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stiltz in view of Coope and Lee.
According to the examiner’s findings, Stiltz’ work bench has pair of hand driven vise
screws (see Figures 7 and 8), but lacks a clutch as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. For
this feature, the examiner relies on the Coope patent and concludes that the teachings of Coope
would have made it obvious to provide Stiltz’ vise with a torque responsive clutch. The
examiner’s position is untenable.
In the first place, appealed claims 1 and 6 do not broadly call for a clutch connected in
any manner to one or more vise screws to limit the torque applied thereto as the examiner
seems to suggest on page 3 of the answer. Instead, claims 1 and 6 are specifically limited to a
clutch that enables “rotation of one screw with respect to the other screw.” Such a relationship
is not taught by Coope.
Instead, Coope merely teaches the concept of connecting a torque-limiting clutch to a
single vise screw to limit the torque applied to that screw. Thus, Coope lacks a suggestion of
locating the clutch in Stiltz’ dual screw arrangement to enable rotation of one screw with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007