Appeal No. 97-0040
Application 08/303,065
Claim 1, the first independent apparatus claim to which this
rejection applies, reads:
1. An apparatus for parting-off a rotating workpiece, said
apparatus comprising:
means for cutting the workpiece, said means for cutting
forcible against the workpiece;[4]
a rubbing pad, disposed proximately to said means for
cutting, and forcible against the workpiece; and
means for substantially neutralizing in the immediate
vicinity of said means for cutting and said rubbing pad reaction
forces upon said means for cutting and said rubbing pad.
The examiner finds this claim to be anticipated by Balmforth
in that the reference discloses a parting-off apparatus having a
cutting means 6 and rubbing pad 14a, and items 1 (tool holder), 9
(bracket head), 10 (disc) and 14 (stop bar) would constitute the
claimed means for substantially neutralizing reaction forces
(element (c) of the claim) (Paper No. 3, page 5; answer, page 4).
We do not agree.
In construing a claimed “means,” the sixth paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 requires that such means “be construed to cover the
4The word “forcible,” which means “effected by force” or
“having force” (The Random House College Dictionary (1973)),
appears to be used incorrectly (twice) in this claim. Appellant
evidently intended to employ the word “forceable,” i.e., “able to
be forced,” and we will so construe “forcible” here. However,
the claim should be appropriately corrected in any subsequent
prosecution.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007