Ex Parte Blaustein - Page 3




            Appeal No. 2002-0947                                                          Page 3              
            Application No. 09/518,835                                                                        


            adjacent stripping openings of equal size.  As explained on page 5 of appellant’s                 
            specification, a commonly used type of sheathed cable includes two insulated 12 gauge             
            wires and a bare ground wire and an advantage of the provision of two adjacent                    
            stripping openings equally sized for stripping 12 gauge wires is that it allows a worker to       
            strip both of the 12 gauge wires at one time.                                                     
                   Yang, the sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
            obviousness, discloses a wire crimping and stripping tool comprising pivoted jaws and a           
            wire stripping section 38 formed by a top face 381 of a first elongated member 31                 
            provided with a wire stripping teethed edge and a downwardly inclined top face 382 of a           
            second elongated member 32 also provided with a teethed edge.  The relative sizes of              
            the openings formed between the teeth of the faces 381, 382 of the wire stripping                 
            section 38 of Yang cannot be determined with any certainty from the inconsistent                  
            illustrations thereof in Figure 4, which appears to show a continuous graduation of               
            openings from smallest to largest with increasing distance from the pivot, and Figure 5,          
            which appears to show random size openings.  The examiner’s assertion on page 3 of                
            the final rejection that “it appears that some of the holes in the wire-stripping [section]       
            are equal in size” is based upon speculation.2  As is evident from Yang’s discussion of           
            the background of the invention in column 1, lines 41-44, the recesses of the wire                


                   2 Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis.  In making such a rejection,
            the examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts
            that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
            to supply deficiencies in the factual basis.  In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178
            (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007