Appeal No. 1998-1266 Page 4
Application No. 08/354,459
§ 103 as being unpatentable over DeFries in view of
Hirabayashi. Reference is made to the final office action4
mailed October 3, 1995 for complete details of this rejection.
With regard to claim 5, the only limitation argued as a
distinction over the applied references is the step of “moving
the cutting tool relative to an edge of the formed hole, said
moving of the cutting tool [being] dependent on a radial
extent of any physical defects in the composite material
caused by making the formed hole, . . .” In support of5
patentability of this claim, appellants concede that DeFries
teaches the concept of drilling and grinding a hole in a
composite material” (main brief, page 4), but contends that
this reference lacks a disclosure of “moving the cutting tool
in a parallel motion relative to an edge of the formed hole”
(emphasis added; brief, page 4).
4 As a result of the amendment filed after the examiner’s
answer, the new ground of rejection of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn (see the
examiner’s letter mailed October 20, 1997). Accordingly, the
only issue before us is the propriety of the examiner’s
rejection under § 103.
5 See the argument set forth on page 4 of the main brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007