Appeal No. 2003-1657 Page 5
Application No. 09/554,319
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree. In our view, the combined teachings of the Admitted Prior
Art and either Bailey or Rescigno would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art,
at the time the invention was made, to have indexed the tool 11 of the Admitted Prior
Art to have presented a new portion of the cutting edge at both the location of
comparatively coarse cutting and the location of finishing cutting. Accordingly, the
combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the relevant teachings of the applied prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. In that regard, the applied prior art is not suggestive of (1) the step of moving
the cutting edge sufficiently to replace the cutting edge in the location of finishing
cutting with the fresh portion of cutting edge and to move the cutting edge that has
been in the location of finishing cutting into engagement with the workpiece in the
location of comparatively coarse cutting as set forth in claims 2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12;
(2) the step of effecting angular movement of the cutting tool in a direction to replace
with a new cutting edge portion a part of the cutting edge portion in contact with the
rotating workpiece in substantially only a location of tool engagement affecting the finish
of the machined workpiece as set forth in claims 13, 15 and 16; (3) a drive to move the
cutting edge of the tool along the path of translation sufficiently to move a fresh, unworn
portion of cutting edge to replace a wearing finish cutting part of the cutting portion of
the cutting edge and to move the wearing finish cutting part of the cutting portion into
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007