Appeal No. 2004-0119
Application 08/644,170
Mino does not disclose a pair of crimping elements on each jaw
and does not explicitly disclose the material of the tool. We
observe that Mino also does not disclose a dense anodic coating
like that set forth in claim 1 on appeal.
To account for the first of the above-noted differences, the
examiner’s looks to Klingler, urging that this patent teaches
that it is known in the art to form a crimping tool with a
plurality of crimping elements (30, 32, 34, 36; 38, 40, 42, 44),
and concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time appellants’ invention was made to
have modified the jaws of Mino by providing another crimping
element on each jaw as taught by Klingler in order to form a
plurality of crimps on a workpiece in a single operation of the
tool. In this regard, the examiner further contends that mere
duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves
only routine skill in the art.
To address the second difference, the examiner turns to
Zelenka, contending that this patent “teaches that it is known in
the art to form a tool entirely of aluminum as set forth in
column 5, line 66 to column 3, line 2” (answer, page 4). From
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007