Ex Parte TOYCEN et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0119                                                        
          Application 08/644,170                                                      


          Appellants’ invention is directed to a hand operated,                       
          pliers-type crimping tool for blasting caps.  Independent claim 1           
          is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as              
          follows:                                                                    
               1.  A pliers-type crimping tool for blasting caps,                     
          comprising a pair of pivotally connected jaws, each jaw having a            
          pair of crimping elements formed integrally as part of the                  
          respective jaw and operative for forming a double crimp in a                
          single jaw closing operation, said crimping tool composed of                
          aluminum for providing non-sparking and non-magnetic properties,            
          and wherein the outer surfaces of the aluminum are provided with            
          a dense anodic coating to enhance wear properties, and wherein              
          outer surfaces of the aluminum that are susceptible to wear are             
          provided with an anodic coating having a thickness of at least              
          0.001 inch.                                                                 

          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                       
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Mino et al. (Mino)            610,305        Sept. 6, 1898                  
          Klingler                 2,784,621           Mar. 12, 1957                  
          Ogden                    4,822,458           Apr. 18, 1989                  
          Zelenka                  5,560,269           Oct.  1, 1996                  


          Claims 1, 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                
          being unpatentable over Mino in view of Klingler, Zelenka and               
          Ogden.                                                                      


          Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full                        
          commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the                 
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007