Appeal No. 2004-0119
Application 08/644,170
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed January 5, 1999) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
11, filed October 21, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
March 8, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the collective teachings of
Mino, Klingler, Zelenka and Ogden recognizes that the pliers-type
crimping tool for blasting caps of Mino includes a pair of
pivotally connected jaws (4, 5), with each jaw having an integral
crimping element (9). The examiner notes (answer, page 4) that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007