Appeal 2007-1195
Application 10/381,340
The Appellants’ claimed invention is to a flat chisel for working stone
(Specification 1:3-6). The object of the invention is to develop a flat chisel that
has a low tendency to jam in the stone being worked (Specification 1:19-21).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An insertion chisel for power-driven hammers for
working stone comprising:
a chisel head having a main lip disposed
transversely to a chisel longitudinal axis, a front and a
rear striking face, and at least one side face connecting
the striking faces; and
a shank attached to the chisel head having means
for attaching the insertion chisel to a power-driven
hammer;
wherein the side face includes a side lip and the
side lip prevents the tendency of the insertion chisel to
jam in the stone while the power-driven hammer causes
the insertion chisel to work the stone.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Jenny EP 0 497 307 A2 Aug. 5, 1992
Hauptmann (as EP 0 925 881 A1 Jun. 30, 1999
translated)1
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Jenny.
1 The Examiner refers to the Hauptman disclosure as Batliner throughout.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013