Appeal No. 2000-1000
Application No. 08/392,062
had possession of the later claimed subject matter of claims
20 and 26.
It is quite clear to us that the import of appellant’s
teaching, personified by the preferred and modified
embodiments of Figs. 7 and 8, respectively, is that the
objective of securely installing a liquid dam or barrier
assembly is achieved by an undercut in each of the confronting
sidewalls of the groove intended for gouging engagement by
locking screws or pins to insure that the dam during use will
not slide or otherwise move around or become loose to avoid
the danger that a loose dam would fly away from a rotating
insert and cause injury to a lathe operator. Thus, appellant
teaches that the solution to the problem of a dam flying off a
rotating insert and causing injury is to provide an undercut
in each of the walls of the groove for engagement by locking
members (screws or pins). Simply stated, appellant’s
specification offers no suggestion whatsoever that an undercut
provided in a sidewall of the groove, when engaged by a screw
or pin, would so secure a dam that the problem of the dam
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007