Appeal No. 97-0593
Application 08/365,906
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, to the declaration of Kenneth
L. Niebauer filed March 25, 1996 and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
this review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
After careful review of the basic combination of
Stashko and Warren, we must agree with appellant that there is no
teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied references which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to their
combination as posited by the examiner so as to arrive at the
particular form of cutting insert as claimed by appellant in
independent claims 1, 11 and 16 on appeal. While the examiner is
of the view that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the configuration of the spherical
recesses or depressions (36) of Stashko so as to have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007