Appeal No. 2002-0993 Page 17
Application No. 09/368,781
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A tool for cutting materials, comprising:
a first lever arm;
a second lever arm, said second lever arm being coupled to said first
lever arm by a pivot assembly;
a first insert with multiple cutting edges including at least a first cutting
edge and a second cutting edge, said first cutting edge being of greater length
than said second cutting edge, said first insert disposed at least partly within and
attached to said first lever arm; and
a second insert with multiple cutting edges including at least a third cutting
edge and a fourth cutting edge, said third cutting edge being of greater length
than said fourth cutting edge, said second insert disposed at least partly within
and attached to said second lever arm such that when the angle between said
first lever arm and said second lever arm is reduced towards zero, said first
insert and said second insert cooperatively act to cut material disposed
therebetween.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter of claim 1. We agree.
Claim 1 requires both the first and second inserts to have cutting edges of
different lengths. However, Root teaches and suggests only inserts with cutting edges
of equal length. To supply this omission in the teachings of Root, the examiner made a
determination (final rejection, p. 3; answer, p. 5) that these differences would have been
obvious to an artisan. However, this determination has not been supported by any
evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007