Appeal No. 2000-2154
Application 09/136,761
as to that claim.3
With regard to claim 3, appellant argues that Mdller does
not disclose “an annular side surface that would operatively
engage a side surface of a workpiece yet having a bottom
surface staying just clear of a support surface” (brief, page
12). This requires consideration of claim 2, from which claim
3 depends; claim 2 recites that the head section of the tool
“includes a bottom surface lying in a plane disposed
perpendicular to an axis of said shank section.” Mdller does
not anticipate this limitation, because there is no
description or showing in Mdller of what the shape of the
bottom of tool 56 is. The rejection of claims 2 and 3
3
therefore will not be sustained.
Appellant further contends that Mdller does not disclose
that the tool 56 is made of carbide steel, as required by
3
claim 6. We agree. Since Mdller only states that the body of
3 Since appellant states on page 8 of the brief that
claims 1 to 3 and 6 stand or fall together, we might well also
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 6. However, we have
treated them separately in view of the separate arguments
presented in the brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007