Appeal No. 1999-2414
Application No. 08/942,732
Claims 2-7, 9, 12, 13, 15-21 and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Weissman in view of Heath with regard to claims 2, 7, 9, 13, 15-21
and 23-28, adding Scruggs with regard to claims 3-6 and 12.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of independent claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), the examiner contends
that Weissman’s teaching of a working shaft with larger routing sections 29 coated with diamond dust,
inherently possesses different stiffness/flexibility properties than sections 30 which are not coated with
diamond dust.
Appellants do not deny that the diamond coated sections possess a different stiffness/flexibility
property than do the non-diamond coated sections. Rather, appellants argue that Weissman discloses
two distinct shafts, only one of which is a “working shaft,” as claimed. Appellants contend that only the
shaft with the cutting sections (16 and 29) of Weissman, i.e., those sections with the diamond dust, are
analogous to appellants’ claimed “working shaft.” The second, minor diameter shafts (15, 30) in
Weissman, in appellants’ view, are not “working shafts” because they provide no “work” in the context
3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007