Appeal No. 97-1871
Application 08/325,847
particularly Balz, which would teach or suggest these limitations, and will not sustain the rejection of
claims 4 to 7 and 13 to 15 under § 103.
Rejection (III)
The examiner states in the answer as to this rejection (pages 7 and 8):
The patented and the pending claims set forth the same invention of substantially the
same scope except the invention of patented claims 1-15 contain needle size and
particle size limitations. However, it is well known in the art that the size of the tumbling
media and the size of the articles being tumbled can be varied and are strictly choices of
the operator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the
process of claims 1-5 without specific limitations on the tumbling media or the articles
being tumbled.
The only argument we find in appellant's brief concerning this rejection is on page 15 (original
emphasis):
Reversal of this rejection is respectfully requested. Samsel et al. claims a process
for deburring reducing the sharp edges of needle blanks. There is no suggestion in the
Samsel et al. claims to radius the tip of an already sharply pointed needle to provide a
blunt tip having the recited radius. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the
claims in the present application are not obvious over the claims in the Samsel et al.
'465 patent.
The examiner responds at page 11 of the answer:
Appellant correctly states that the Samsel et al. reference claims a method for
deburring and reducing sharp edges of needle blanks. However, it is offered that
"deburring and reducing sharp edges" is essentially the same thing as forming a
substantially hemispherical radius tip because the tip before Appellant's method is a
sharp edge and it is reduced. Further, it is offered that the treatment of needle blanks
and the treatment of needles are substantially the same scope. The Samsel et al. claims
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007