Appeal No. 2002-0986 Page 2
Application No. 09/222,282
present a fresh cutting edge to the work being cut (specification, page 1). Claim 1, the
sole claim before us on appeal, is reproduced, infra, in the opinion section of this
decision.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claim:
Bailey 5,761,976 Jun. 9, 1998
(filed Apr. 15, 1997)
Kanbar 5,904,283 May 18, 1999
(filed May 10, 1996)
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bailey in view of Kanbar.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the rejection
mailed March 26, 2001 and the answer (Paper Nos. 15 and 20) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the supplemental brief1 and reply
brief (Paper Nos. 17 and 21) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claim 1, to the applied Bailey and Kanbar patents, and
1 Appellants filed a supplemental brief in response to the examiner’s new rejection (Paper No. 15)
following appellants’ first appeal brief (Paper No. 14).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007