Appeal No. 2002-0946 Page 4
Application No. 09/590,121
At the outset, we observe that “said clusters” in claim 1 lacks clear antecedent
basis. While claim 1 positively recites “a cluster” of said fingers, the claim lacks clear
and positive recitation of a plurality of said clusters so as to provide clear antecedent
basis for “said clusters.” In our opinion, the scope of the claim as a whole is easily
ascertainable to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus is not indefinite. Specifically, it
is apparent from a reading of claim 1 as a whole that it includes a plurality of clusters of
fingers. The lack of clear antecedent basis for “said clusters” is deserving of correction,
however, by adding language such as --a plurality of-- before “said clusters.”
Turning now to the examiner’s rejection, there does not appear to be any dispute
that Loxterkamp discloses a flexible wrench which meets the limitations of claim 1 with
the exception of fingers extending inwardly from the inner surface of the one piece
gripping strap (metallic band 2). Halpin (column 2, lines 25-29) teaches piercing a steel
gripping band to provide the inner surface of the band “with a series of spaced apart
and inwardly facing projections 26 which act as gripping teeth.” The piercing of the
steel gripping band by Halpin appears to result in just the type of prior art wrench with
jagged edges which appellants sought to improve in developing their invention
(specification, page 1, lines 9-13). Halpin’s projections 26 do not comprise a concave
surface extending inwardly from the outer surface of the strap or a convex surface
extending away from the inner surface of the strap, as called for in claim 1.
Bram (column 2, lines 7-14) teaches a wrench comprising a gripping band 11
which is covered on its inner face with a lining 15 of an elastic material, such as rubber,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007