Appeal No. 2002-1050
Application 09/425,505
with the appellants’ specification, reads on the compensating
directional offsets disclosed by Gerber.
Hence, the appellants’ contention that the limitations in
claim 1 relating to the “compensating lateral directional
offsets” distinguish the subject matter recited in the claim over
Gerber is not persuasive. We shall therefore sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2
through 4 which stand or fall therewith, as being anticipated by
Gerber.1
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5
Dependent claim 5 defines the cutting tool recited in parent
claim 1 as a rotary cutting tool, and the cutting conditions
recited in claim 1 as including the rotating speed of the cutting
tool and the number of flutes thereon.
Conceding that Gerber’s rotary blade embodiment lacks
flutes, the examiner seemingly relies on Tucker’s disclosure of a
router having a fluted bit 32 to conclude that it would have been
obvious to employ such a fluted bit in place of Gerber’s cutting
1 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should
consider whether claim 2 is consistent with the related
disclosure on page 7 in the specification.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007