Appeal No. 97-0040
Application 08/303,065
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection under
§ 102(b) of claim 10, nor of claims 11 to 15 and 17 dependent
thereon.
The other independent method claim rejected as anticipated
by Balmforth is claim 19:
19. A method for cutting a workpiece rotating within a
lathe, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a tool body;
(b) providing a tool body support means;
(c) providing a rubbing pad upon the tool body;
(d) mounting a cutting tip upon the tool body;
(e) pressing the cutting tip against the workpiece, thereby
inducing a first reaction force upon the cutting tip;
(f) resting the rubbing pad upon the workpiece, thereby
inducing a second reaction force upon the rubbing pad; and
(g) resisting within the tool body the first reaction force
and the second reaction force, whereby transfer of the reaction
forces to the tool body support means is substantially
neutralized.
We will not sustain this rejection, or the rejection of
dependent claim 20, because Balmforth does not disclose, either
expressly or inherently, step (g) of the claimed method. While
the bar 14 and cutter 6 of Balmforth would both “resist” the
reaction forces on them, it appears that such forces would be
transmitted through the tool body 1 to the machine, rather than
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007