Appeal No. 1999-2735 Page 6
Application No. 08/672,440
taught by Adia since such a modification would have reduced
the overall processing time and increased machining efficiency
(answer, page 4). The appellant argues that the combination
proposed by the examiner is based on hindsight (brief, page
13) and that any combination of the two references would not
lead to the claimed tool component (brief, page 14).
Although the examiner proposes that the combined
teachings of Olmstead and Adia render the claimed structure
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not find any teaching or
suggestion of how the V-shape (or cross-shape) recess (20, 40)
of Adia would be combined with Olmstead to arrive at the
subject matter of the appellant's claim 1. The examiner
suggests that one of ordinary skill could have modified step
(44a) of Olmstead's embodiment of Figs. 5 and 6 with Adia's
wedge-shaped configuration. However, it is our view that
incorporating Adia's V-shape recess (20), which has a portion
(21) coincident with the periphery of the carbide substrate
(12), into Olmstead's shallow recess portion is contrary to
Olmstead's teaching that "the recess is surrounded by carbide
and is located entirely within the carbide substrate" (column
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007