Appeal No. 97-0040
Application 08/303,065
corresponding structure ... described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the present
case, considering appellant’s disclosure with respect to the
“means for substantially neutralizing” recited as element (c) of
claim 1, it is evident that the force neutralizing function
arises from the use of a cutter and rubbing pad which are fixed
to the tool body, in conjunction with the fact that the tool body
is not cantilevered to the tool post (and thereby to the
machine), but rather is pivotally mounted on the tool post and,
through the cutter and rubbing pad, rides against the workpiece.
The Balmforth patent does not disclose any such structure, nor an
equivalent thereof, since the tool body 1, and therefore the
cutter 6 and stop bar 14, are evidently attached to the body of
the machine as a cantilever, in conventional fashion. We
therefore conclude that claim 1 is not anticipated by Balmforth,
and will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of claims 2
and 8 dependent thereon, under § 102(b).
The first independent method claim rejected under § 102(b)
is claim 10:
10. A method of parting-off a rotating workpiece comprising
the steps of:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007