Ex parte BALLY et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 2001-1198                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 09/233,899                                                  


          The obviousness rejection of claims 14 and 15                               
               We have reviewed the reference to Edwards additionally                 
          applied in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 15                
          but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies                
          of Chow discussed above.  Accordingly, we cannot sustain the                
          examiner's rejection of appealed claims 14 and 15 under 35                  
          U.S.C. § 103.                                                               


          The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 5, 7 to 13 and 19                  
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 7 to               
          13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                  
          Miller in view of Wright.                                                   


               In this rejection, the examiner ascertained (answer, p.                
          4) that Miller's pliers/tool shown in Figures 6-9 taught all                
          the subject matter of claim 1 except for (1) a spring means                 
          secured to said intermediate portion of the first plier member              
          for urging the pawl member into a generally concentric                      
          relationship with the generally arcuate rack during the                     
          initial movement of the handle portions toward each other to                
          grasp the workpiece and for urging the plurality of second                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007