Ex parte Korinek

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 1998

08346060 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 1998)

This application was filed November 29, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CHRIS W. KORINEK
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,0601
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before COHEN, STAAB and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 13. These claims constitute all of the claims in
the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to an apparatus for attaching
a screw-on electrical connector to a plurality of wires. A
further understanding of the invention can be derived from a
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
This rejection reflects the correction noted in the2
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 12).
2
reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which is appended
to appellant’s brief.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied
the documents listed below:
Abell et al. (Abell) 3,834,252 Sep. 14, 1974
Tuttle 4,823,650 Apr. 25, 1989
Johnson 4,982,627 Jan. 8, 1991
Zumeta 5,031,488 Jul. 16, 1991
Akazawa 5,360,073 Nov. 1, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in the
alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in the alternative,
Abell in view of Tuttle, further in view of Zumeta or Johnson.
Claims 10 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in the
alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle, further in view of
Akazawa.2
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have3
considered all of the disclosure of each teaching for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 10), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 9).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings, and3
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 1 and 10 each set forth an apparatus for
attaching a screw-on electrical connector to a plurality of
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
4
wires. The apparatus includes, inter alia, a tool having a member
for engaging a screw-on electrical connector in order to twist
the screw-on electrical connector onto the plurality of wires.
The apparatus further comprises indicia. In claim 1, the indicia
is required to be associated with the torque limiting device
indicating adjustments of the mechanism for a plurality of
combinations of quantities and sizes of wires to be connected by
the screw-on electrical connector. In claim 10, the indicia is
required to be on the apparatus indicating different torque
settings for the mechanism which indicia designate a number and
size of wires to be connected.
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s rejections is
that the evidence fails to support a conclusion of obviousness.
Thus, for the reasons more fully explained below, we are
constrained to reverse each of the rejections before us.
Tuttle (column 1, lines 18 through 22) teaches a power
driven wrench for wire connectors and reveals that proper
connection torque is difficult to achieve when many wires are
connected together. Thus, according to Tuttle, wrenches have been
developed to ensure that all connections are properly torqued.
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
5
Abell teaches a portable, power operated tool which is
universally adjustable to properly torque a wide variety of screw
sizes and joint types (column 1, lines 47 through 52). As
indicated by the patentee (column 5, lines 7,8), settings at a
given torque level can be made by the provision of index numbers
and a pointer.
When we collectively evaluate these latter teachings,
following the examiner’s alternative rationales, we fail to
derive therefrom any suggestion for the claimed apparatus indicia
indicating adjustments or settings for the mechanism of the
torque limiting device for the quantities or number and sizes of
wires to be connected.
The respective patents to Johnson, Zumeta, and Akazawa do
not overcome the deficiencies of the Tuttle and Abell documents.
Specifically, it is apparent to us that the color chart and
method of tool identification of Johnson and the color coding
system of Zumeta for tools or other hand manipulated devices
simply do not provide the requisite suggestion for the particular
apparatus indicia now claimed.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
6
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in
the alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle;
reversed the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in
the alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle, further in view of
Zumeta or Johnson; and
reversed the rejection of claims 10 through 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of
Abell, or in the alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle, further in
view of Akazawa.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
7
George E. Haas
Quarles & Brady
411 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
ICC/cam