Ex Parte Nouvel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2011

11785758 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLAUDE NOUVEL
____________

Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758
1

Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
This is an application for reissue of US 6,880,434 B2, issued April 19,
2005, to Nouvel (hereinafter “Nouvel”).
Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claude Nouvel (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1-
14 and 17-19 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 6,019,020, iss. Feb. 1,
2000) and Herbert (US 4,917, iss. May 28, 1872) and claims 15, 16, and 20-
26 as being unpatentable over Liou, Herbert, and Emhardt (US 6,318,217
B1, iss. Nov. 20, 2001). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6 (2002). Appellant’s representative presented oral argument in
this appeal on April 27, 2011.
The Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to interengaged multigrip
pliers. Nouvel, col. 1, ll. 6-7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
1. Interengaged multigrip pliers comprising:
an interengaging arm having a first jaw, a first
intermediate articulation region, and a first handle, the first
intermediate articulation region defining a depression, and a
step on either side of the depression;
an interengaged arm having a second jaw, a second
intermediate articulation region, and a second handle, the
second articulation region being received so as to be movable in
rotation, and selectively in translation, in the depression; and
a plate for holding the second articulation region in the
depression, ends of the plate being positioned on the steps,
respectively,
wherein the plate has an outer generally Ω shape when
viewed from a side thereof.

Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758

3
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

OPINION
Issue (1) – Combination of Liou and Herbert
The first issue, which is pertinent to the rejections of all claims
involved in this appeal, is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to modify Liou’s pipe wrench to provide the
second intermediate section 21 of the second arm (second elongated member
20) with a thickness that exceeds the depth of recess 14 in the other arm
(first elongated member 10) and to provide a plate having a generally Ω
shape (or one having a central portion offset from the ends) to accommodate
the thicker arm. See Ans. 4, 6.
We conclude that the evidence relied upon by the Examiner is
sufficient to render obvious the proposed modification. In particular, Liou
and Herbert evidence that a flush arm configuration (i.e., one in which an
intermediate articulation region of one arm has a thickness substantially
equal to the depth of the recess in the intermediate articulation region of the
other arm) and a raised or offset arm configuration (i.e., one in which the
intermediate articulation region of the one arm exceeds the depth of the
recess in the intermediate articulation region of the other arm) were both
known configurations for pipe wrenches at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Neither Liou nor Herbert attributes any significance or criticality
to the depth of the recess relative to the thickness of the intermediate
articulation section of the other arm. Accordingly, the selection of either of
these known configurations for Liou’s pipe wrench would have been
Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758

4
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The recognition that a
thicker intermediate section 21 on Liou’s second elongated member without
a commensurate increase in the depth of the recess 14 would produce a
stronger second elongated member without weakening or requiring
additional thickness in the first elongated member involves only a
rudimentary understanding of mechanics and is a simple matter of common
sense, well within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, the corresponding modification of Liou’s panel 30 to provide an
offset in the central portion thereof to accommodate the thickness of the
intermediate section 21 extending beyond the recess 14 in the raised or
offset arm configuration would involve only ordinary creativity, and would
not be uniquely challenging to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant’s argument on page 8 of the Appeal Brief that if Liou’s arm
20 were thickened, one of ordinary skill in the art would have merely
enlarged/thickened all other related structures, including the other arm 10,
incorrectly presumes that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a mere
automaton, and not a person of ordinary creativity. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellant’s argument on pages 9 and 10 of their Appeal Brief that
Liou’s teaching that the elongated slot weakens the strength of the elongated
slotted member (see Liou, col. 1, ll. 26-30) does not persuade us of error in
the Examiner’s proposed combination of Liou and Herbert, as the Examiner
does not propose to add an elongated slot to Liou’s pipe wrench in the
Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758

5
rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-19 as unpatentable over Liou and Herbert.
2

Appellant asserts that there is an inextricable association between the raised
or offset arm configuration taught by Herbert and the pin and elongated slot
attachment/adjustment arrangement of Herbert. Appellant does not point to,
and we do not find, any teaching of any such association in Herbert’s
disclosure.
For the above reasons, the Examiner did not err in concluding that it
would have been obvious to modify Liou’s pipe wrench to provide a second
intermediate section 21 of the second arm (second elongated member 20)
with a thickness that exceeds the depth of the recess 14 in the other arm (first
elongated member 10) and to provide a plate having a generally Ω shape (or
one having a central portion offset from the ends) to accommodate the
thicker arm. All of Appellant’s arguments contesting the rejection of claims
1-14 and 17-19 as unpatentable over Liou and Herbert and the rejection of
claims 15 and 16 as unpatentable over Liou, Herbert, and Emhardt are
premised on their position that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Liou and Herbert was in error. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments do not
persuade us of error in the rejections.
Issue (2) – Provision of an elongate cut-out in Liou’s
second intermediate region
Liou specifically provides the panel 30, and resilient blocks 34, 36
included on panel 30, to avoid the need for a pin and elongate slot
arrangement, which adversely impacts the structural strength of the slotted
member. Col. 1, ll. 19-30, col. 2, ll. 57-59. The ridge 19, channels 27, and

2
Claims 15 and 16 do not call for a slot, and the Examiner does not
explicitly propose providing a slot in the rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758

6
panel 30, with its resilient blocks 34, 36, provide reliable securement and
adjustability of the first and second elongated members of the pipe wrench.
Col. 1, ll. 33-36; col. 2, ll. 48-64. The resilient blocks 34, 36 function to
“bias the second intermediate section 21 of the second elongated member 20
toward the first intermediate section 11 of the first elongated member 10
such that the two sections 11 and 21 closely contact with each other so as to
provide a reliable grasping effect.” Col. 2, ll. 59-64. One of ordinary skill
in the art would not have been prompted to provide in Liou’s pipe wrench an
elongate cut-out in the second intermediate section 21, an opening in the
central portion of the panel 30, and a pin extending into the cut-out and
opening, as called for in claim 20, because the functions they would serve
are already provided by Liou’s panel, ridge, and channels, as discussed
above. Additionally, to incorporate these features would re-introduce the
pin and slot which Liou seeks to avoid and would seemingly interfere with
the placement of the resilient blocks 34, 36 and the biasing function they
serve to provide a reliable grasping effect. Thus, we agree with Appellant
(see App. Br. 15-16) that the modification proposed by the Examiner would
not have been obvious.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 20, or of claims 21-26, which
depend from claim 20, as being unpatentable over Liou, Herbert, and
Emhardt.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed as to claims 1-19 and reversed as
to claims 20-26.
Appeal 2011-005007
Application 11/785,758

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

nlk