Appeal No. 96-2404
Application No. 08/112,446
of the UK reference as the more advantageous tool for forming
the second recess.
In summary, it is our determination for the reasons
enunciated earlier that we shall sustain the examiner’s
section 103 rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 15 through 17
as being unpatentable over the UK reference, “the admitted
state of the prior art” and Shorin.
However, we can not sustain the corresponding rejection
of claims 12 through 14 and 18 through 22. Regarding claims
12 through 14, although the UK reference shows a rotary cutter
as pointed out by the examiner in his answer and above, this
rotary cutter quite plainly does not possess a central relief
portion “formed in said rotary cutter about the rotational
axis thereof” as required by these claims. Any central relief
portion that may be present in the UK reference cutter would
be perpendicular to the rotational axis as clearly shown in
Figure 7. As for claims 18 through 22, we agree with the
appellants that the applied prior art simply contains no
teaching or suggestion of the features recited in these
claims. Stated otherwise, the applied prior art is
evidentiarily inadequate to establish a prima facie case of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007