Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
examiner. Moreover, with respect to the examiner’s further
modification of Cheng’s tool retaining inserts to include
“dovetail tenons and recesses” adapted to couple with a container
as required in claim 46 on appeal, we remain of the view
expressed supra in our treatment of claim 1 based on the
examiner’s proposed combination of Cheng, Kazen and Hurson, i.e.,
that any such modification of the tool retaining inserts of Cheng
would render Cheng inoperable for its intended purpose. Thus, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is that
of claims 39, 41, 44, 47 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hanson in view of Gühring or Vasudeva. In this
instance, the examiner begins with the molded plastic drill bit
container of Hanson, urging that Hanson discloses “most of the
elements of the claims, but lacks V-shaped cradle [sic]” (answer,
page 7). To account for this difference, the examiner again looks
to Gühring and Vasudeva (Fig. 9) for a tool retaining member with
V-shaped cradles, and contends (based on those teachings) that it
would have been obvious to substitute a V-shaped cradle for the
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007