Appeal No. 2001-0308 Page 9
Application No. 09/188,701
the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who
first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not
a proper basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly,
rejections (5) and (6) will not be sustained.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Wingert.
As admitted by appellant on page 5 of the specification, in
lines 12-18, it was well known at the time of appellant’s
invention for electricians to use a Robertson driver to
manipulate 14 gauge ground wire around a grounding screw.
Wingert teaches the provision of a pair of notches (slots) in the
tip of a head of a screw driver to facilitate engagement of a
wire for looping a wire around a screw 42 of a screw terminal 44.
In view of the combined teachings of AAPA and Wingert, it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a notch or
slot in the tip of a Robertson driver to permit an electrician to
more easily manipulate 14 gauge ground wire around a grounding
screw. Further, it follows that it would have been obvious for
an electrician to use such a slotted Robertson driver in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007