Appeal No. 2003-0541 Page 3
Application No. 09/645,845
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As explained on pages 2 and 3 of the specification, the appellant’s invention
provides two different sized tubular wrench sockets, each of having four notches at its
operating end which can accommodate a square head of a pipe fitting plug or the
radially extending spokes of a bathtub drain or the like, with the larger of the two
sockets being attachable to and driveable by the smaller (see Figures 1, 5 and 7). The
configuration of the wrenches is such that they can be passed through an opening in a
wall, or through the pipe leading to, the items to be worked. The lower portion of the
second (larger) socket is receivable in the four notches in the upper portion of the first
(smaller) socket. According to claim 13, the first tubular socket and its notches are
sized to accommodate parts used with 1½ inch nominal diameter pipe and the larger to
accommodate parts used with 2 inch nominal diameter pipe.
The examiner has rejected independent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious in view of the combined teachings of Bayouth and Rogers. In arriving at
this conclusion, the examiner has found that Bayouth discloses the claimed invention
“except for the use of a second socket of a different size to be secured to the working
end of the first socket tube in order to provide for a set that is usable on larger sized
elements.” However, the examiner is of the view that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bayouth by using a larger second socket
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007