Appeal No. 2000-2180 Page 2
Application No. 08/919,866
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a cutting tool having a turntable supported by a
roller bearing structure. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Herzog 3,289,713 Dec. 6, 1966
Barton 3,971,274 Jul. 27, 1976
Bennett 3,998,121 Dec. 21, 1976
Fushiya et al. (Fushiya) 4,638,700 Jan. 27, 1987
Bando 4,981,373 Jan. 1, 1991
Sasaki et al. (Sasaki) 5,392,678 Feb. 28, 1995
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1, 5, 26, 27, 30 and 35-37 on the basis of Bennett, Barton and Bando.
(2) Claims 6, 7, 31-34, 38 and 39 on the basis of Bennett, Barton, Bando and Sasaki.
(3) Claims 8, 28 and 29 on the basis of Bennett, Barton, Bando, Fushiya and Herzog.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 30) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 29) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1This rejection was erroneously applied to claims 6, 7, 31-34, 38 and 39 in the
statement of the rejection in the Answer. However, see page 4 of Paper No. 24 (the final
rejection) and pages 6 and 20 of the Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007