Appeal No. 2001-1198 Page 8
Application No. 09/233,899
teeth of the pawl member into engagement with the plurality of
first teeth of the generally arcuate rack during the continued
movement of the handle portions toward each other to apply the
further grasping force to the workpiece; and (2) a biasing
means for biasing the handle portions away from each other and
the jaw portions away from each other. The examiner then
determined (answer, pp. 4-5) that from the teachings of Wright
it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided
Miller's pliers with spring means and biasing means performing
the functions set forth in claim 1.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art (i.e.,
Miller and Wright) does not suggest the claimed subject
matter. We agree. In that regard, while Wright may have been
suggestive of adding a biasing means for biasing the handle
portions of Miller's pliers away from each other and the jaw
portions away from each other, it is our opinion that Wright
is not suggestive of providing Miller with a spring means as
recited in claim 1 especially since Miller's pawl member
(i.e., pivot part 25a) is biased by spring wire 23a away from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007