Appeal No. 1998-1266 Page 3
Application No. 08/354,459
and moved relative to the edge of the initially formed hole
to machine the hole. Claim 5 recites that “said moving [of
the cutting tool is] dependent on a radial extent of any
physical defects in the composite material caused from making
the formed hole, whereby substantially all of the said
physical defects in the composite material caused from making
the formed hole are removed . . .”
A copy of claim 5, which is illustrative of the subject
matter at issue, is appended to this decision.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness in support of his rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103:
DeFries et al. (DeFries) 4,720,218 Jan.
19, 1988
Hirabayashi et al. 4,800,686 Jan. 31,
1989
(Hirabayashi)
Claims 3 and 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007