Appeal No. 1998-1266 Page 2
Application No. 08/354,459
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 3 and 5 through 8. No other claims are2
pending in the application.
The claimed invention relates to a method of machining a
transverse opening in a fiber-reinforced laminated composite
material. According to claim 5, the only independent claim
on appeal, a hole (3) is initially formed in the composite
material. A cutting tool (5) positioned in the initial hole3
(called a “formed hole” in the appealed claims) is rotated
2 An amendment to claim 3 as filed after the examiner’s
answer has been entered by the examiner. This amendment
responded to a new ground of rejection introduced in the
examiner’s answer. As a result of this amendment, the copy
of claim 3 in the appendix to appellants’ brief is no longer
correct.
3 According to appellants’ specification (see page 4, for
example), “the cutting tool is in the form of a grinding
tool, . . .” Appealed claim 6 also recites that the
“cutting tool comprises a grinding tool.” However,
according to its dictionary definition in Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company,
1971), “grinding” is not a cutting action. Instead,
“grinding” in this dictionary authority means “to wear down,
polish or sharpen by friction.” For purposes of this
appeal, we will nevertheless interpret the word “cutting” to
be broad enough to encompass the act of grinding to be
consistent with appellants’ specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007