Appeal No. 2002-0049 Page 17
Application No. 09/317,538
appellant's argument (brief, pages 14-16) that this limitation is not taught or suggested
by the applied prior art. We do not agree with the examiner's opinion (answer, page 11)
that to form the chamfer 227 taught by Abe with the edge contouring system of
Dombrowski would inherently result in a tool path that will be approximately equivalent
to the shape defined by Abe 's openings 114a, b and c. In that regard, we note that
Abe's chamfer 227 could be formed with the edge contouring system of Dombrowski by
a tool path that would approximate the downstream edge of Abe 's openings 114a, b
and c but would not approximate the other edges of Abe 's openings 114a, b and c
(e.g., the upstream edge, the edges between the upstream and downstream edges).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2
and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 3 and 4
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 3 and 4 both include the step of generating a machining path
approximately equivalent to a shape defined by at least one outer edge section of the
tool against which the work material will impinge as the work material is advanced onto
the tool in the first direction, shifted in the first direction by a predetermined distance.
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pages 16-18) that this limitation is not
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007