Appeal No. 97-0040
Application 08/303,065
being resisted “within the tool body,” as claimed. Also,
transfer of these forces to the machine (“tool body support
means”) would not be “substantially neutralized” as recited in
step (g).
Claim 29, the other independent apparatus claim, is also not
anticipated by Balmforth. This claim requires, inter alia, “said
[tool] body ... being progressively insertable into the kerf,”
and there is no disclosure or indication in Balmforth that tool
body 1 could be inserted into the kerf cut by tool 6. The
rejection of claim 29 will not be sustained.
(3) Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 16 is dependent from claim 14, claim 22 depends from
claim 19, and claims 23 to 27 depend from claim 22. We have not
sustained the rejection of claims 14 and 19 under § 102(b) as
anticipated by Balmforth for the reasons discussed above, and do
not consider that Armstrong supplies the deficiencies noted with
regard to Balmforth. The rejection of claims 16 and 22 to 27
under § 103 therefore will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed, to reject claims 1
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007