Appeal No. 2005-0118
Application 10/094,413
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the above-noted
§ 103 rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
In the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the examiner recognizes that the motorized wrench shown in Rauch
for spinning together lengths of drill pipe is significantly
structurally different than that defined in appellant’s claims on
appeal, i.e., in that Rauch’s power wrench does not have a frame
with two engaging arms pivotally mounted to the frame and
defining a pipe receiving space therebetween, does not have two
drive systems of the type required in claim 1 on appeal and an
arrangement wherein one of the drive systems is attached to each
of the two above-noted pivotally mounted engaging arms, and also
does not have an engagement assembly like that in appellant’s
claim 1 using two compressed air rams positioned in the manner
set forth in claim 1 for moving the respective pivotally mounted
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007