Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of
Kazen, Hurson and Gretz; 3) claims 14, 15, 64 and 65 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of
Kazen, Hurson and Gretz as applied to claim 9 above, and further
in view of Official Notice; and 4) claim 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Kazen,
Hurson and Gühring. However, we find nothing in the patents to
Hanson, Gretz and Gühring, or the examiner’s invoking of Official
Notice, which changes our view expressed above with regard to the
examiner’s basic combination of Cheng in view of Kazen and
Hurson. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s above-
noted rejections of claim 8; claims 9 through 12 and 20; claims
14, 15, 64 and 65; or claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Next for our review is the examiner’s rejection of claims
39, 41, 44, 45, 47 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheng in view of Hanson and Gühring or
Vasudeva. Appellants’ claim 39 and the claims which depend
therefrom are directed to a tool retaining insert per se, such an
insert is best seen in Figures 16-20 of the present application.
In rejecting the above-noted claims, the examiner observes that
Cheng has neither a plurality of V-shaped tool receiving cradles
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007