Appeal No. 2002-0947 Page 2
Application No. 09/518,835
(specification, page 1). Further understanding of the invention may be obtained from a
reading of representative claims 1, 13 and 15, which are reproduced in the appendix to
appellant’s brief.
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yang1.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 8) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection and to the brief (Paper No. 7) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Yang patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 13 and 15 is directed to a wire-
stripping tool comprising a pair of cutting jaws and wire strippers for stripping a plurality
of equally-sized wires (claims 13 and 15) or wires having a same gauge (claim 1). In
accordance with appellant’s disclosure, this is accomplished by providing a plurality of
1 U.S. Patent No. 5,711,182, issued January 27, 1998.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007