Ex Parte Webster et al - Page 9

              Appeal Number:  2006-0965                                                                                 
              Application Number: 10/827,051                                                                            

              examiner's proposed modification.  Appellants assert (Brief, p. 11) that in an earlier                    
              application, another examiner found that Buchler lacks removable stop blocks.                             
              Appellants additionally assert (id.) that in Buchler, the reference to the frame                          
              clamp of the invention as having a closed, rectangular "flat frame to hold a                              
              workpiece with precision without play or stress," relates to the holding of a flat                        
              object.  It is argued (id.) that this portion of Buchler relied upon by the examiner                      
              addresses a far more specific workpiece.                                                                  
                     It is further asserted (Brief p. 12) that the references teach away from each                      
              other because Buchler uses a flat workpiece whereas Yates relates to a pipe.  It is                       
              argued that the directly opposing nature of the workpieces would discourage an                            
              artisan from combining Yates and Buchler.   Appellants further note (id.) that                            
              “Buchler specifies that open clamp frames and specifically vises-are incapable of                         
              holding a workpiece without play or slack, thereby frustrating the need for high-                         
              precision positioning (Buchler at col. 1, ll. 9-23).”  From Buchler's disclosure of a                     
              closed frame clamp that allows no play, appellants argue (Brief p. 13) that an                            
              artisan, having Yates' clamp in mind, would view Buchler's closed clamp as unduly                         
              limiting the size of the workpiece that could be accommodated.                                            
                     It is further argued (Brief, pp. 13-14) that an artisan would understand the                       
              generally elongated configuration of pipes and that the pipes would extend beyond                         
              the sides of Yates' vice, and that to block the sides of the vice of Yates would                          
              unduly limit the length of pipes that Yates could accommodate.                                            
                     The examiner responds (Answer p. 6) that Buchler employs removable                                 
              interchangeable stop blocks in figures 3 and 4, and that “any combination of                              
              Buchler and Yates would render applicant’s claims obvious under 35 USC 103.”                              
                     From our review of the record, we find that Yates discloses (p. 1, ll. 60-62,                      
              68-72, and 101 through p. 2, l. 1) that                                                                   

                                                           9                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013