Appeal 2007-1212
Application 10/278,319
that is releasably securable, we agree with the Examiner that the reference
reasonably describes a hand operator that is releasably-secured to the
retaining nut. As set forth by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art
may select one of only two options, namely, a releasably-secured fastening
system or a permanent one. We find that such a limited choice presents a
fair description of both.
We will not sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 39-41,
44, and 45 over Espey, or the § 103 rejections of claims 42 and 43, claims
7-9, 28-41, 44, and 45, and claims 42 and 43, all of which involve Espey.
Espey, as acknowledged by the Examiner, is not directed to a system for
securing the neck of a welding implement to a threaded connector but,
rather, is directed to a nut and cap assembly wherein a plastic cap is used to
provide protection and decoration for nuts and to guard against injury caused
by the sharp edges of nuts. Espey discloses that "[t]his is particularly
important in the case of nuts used on the front wheel fork shaft of a bicycle
where the normally tubular shaft is journaled in a generally vertical sleeve
forming part of the frame of the bicycle" (col. 1, ll. 21-24). The basis for the
Examiner's rejection is the rationale that "there is no claim language that is
specific to a 'welding' securing system in claim 39, only the 'intended use' of
the securing system" (page 18 of answer, penultimate full sentence).
However, we find that the claim 39 recitation "for securing a welding
implement neck to a threaded connector," as well as similar language in the
other independent claims, imparts a function to the claimed securing system
that must be considered in the Examiner's rejections. The rejections
employing Espey must include a finding that the cap and nut assembly of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013