Appeal No. 2003-1657 Page 6
Application No. 09/554,319
the rough cutting location as set forth in claims 18 to 23, 29 and 30; and (4) an angular
drive providing translational movement of the tool to replace the cutting edge of the tool
with a fresh, unworn portion of cutting edge in the finishing cut portion of the line of
engagement and to move the used finishing cut portion into the location of the coarse
cutting portion as set forth in claims 25, 26, and 35.
Since the subject matter of claims 2 to 5, 7 to 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 23, 25, 26,
29, 30 and 35 is not suggested by the combined teachings of the applied prior art for
the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to 5, 7 to 9,
12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 23, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007