Appeal 2007-1212
Application 10/278,319
Espey is at least capable of securing a welding implement neck to a threaded
connector. Since the Examiner has made no such finding, the § 103
rejections based on Espey cannot stand.
Finally, we will sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 5 and
6 over Raloff in view of Conway. Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner's
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the securing system of Raloff by fabricating the hand
operator out of a polymeric material including glass-filled nylon or glass-
filled polycarbonate, as suggested by Conway, "in order to provide a non-
conductive, light-weight, flexible and durable polymeric material for use as
a hand tightening securing system" (page 7 of Answer, last para.). Appellant
relies solely upon the purported deficiency of Raloff regarding the features
of independent claim 1 discussed above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-6 and 34-45 are sustained, whereas the Examiner's rejections of
claims 7-9 and 28-33 are reversed. Consequently, the Examiner's decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013