Appeal No. 1999-1912
Application No. 08/730,724
not appear to be any cogent reason for making element 96 of
Rudolf flexible so as to be expandable, as called for in the
claims. Moreover, the examiner’s reading of the claimed first
bush and flexible second bush on elements 90 and 96,
respectively, of Rudolf is a hindsight analysis of Rudolf
based on appellant’s teachings, especially when these claim
terms are read in light of appellant’s disclosure. In
addition, the tool holder of Krüsi does not have both a first
bush and a second flexible bush, with the second flexible bush
being expandable upon axial displacement of the first bush, as
claimed. Instead, Krüsi’s tool holder is akin to appellant’s
Figure 4 embodiment, which is not the subject of the appealed
claims. Finally, there is the matter of the requirement of
claims 3 and 15, from which all the other claims remaining on
appeal depend, calling for the expansion of the second
flexible bushing furthermore causing a pressing action of the
toolholder body on a surface integral with the first
supporting and fast-fit connecting means. The examiner has
not adequately addressed this claim limitation in his
determination of obviousness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007