Appeal 2007-1212
Application 10/278,319
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Espey US 5,350,266 Sep. 27, 1994
Raloff US 5,384,447 Jan. 24, 1995
Conway US 6,713,711 B2 Mar. 30, 2004
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a system for securing a
welding implement neck to a threaded connector. The system comprises a
retaining nut that is tightened onto the threaded connector and a hand
operator or sleeve member secured to the retaining nut. The hand operator
or sleeve allows the retaining nut to be tightened onto the connector by hand.
Appealed claims 34-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, description requirement. Claims 34-45 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. Claims 1-4 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Raloff. Claims
39-41, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Espey. In addition, the appealed claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 5 and 6 over Raloff in view of Conway,
(b) claims 42 and 43 over Espey in view of Conway,
(c) claims 7-9, 28-41, 44, and 45 over Raloff in view of Espey, and
(d) claims 42 and 43 over Raloff in view of Espey and Conway.
In reaching our decision, we have thoroughly reviewed the arguments
advanced by Appellant in the principal and Reply Briefs on appeal, as well
as the Examiner's rationale and rebuttal to Appellant's arguments set forth in
the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013