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 secondPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007