Appeal No. 2003-0510
Application No. 09/524,904
in view of the teachings of Ramun to modify the cross cutter
blade of Sederberg and its receiving recess 92 (such as by making
both the blade and the recess square in plan view) so that the
blade may be rotated about an axis perpendicular to one of its
major faces to bring successive adjacent cutting edges into an
operative cutting position. In this matter, note that Ramun
discloses that the reversible, indexable cutter blade inserts
10 having multiple cutting edges may be either rectangular,
square, or rhombus in shape (column 4, lines 31-52).
Appellants’ arguments in the main and reply briefs have been
considered. At the outset, we simply disagree with the argument
in the third full paragraph on page 4 of the reply brief that
appellants’ specification provides a definition for the term
“successive” appearing in the claims. As we see it, the section
of appellants’ specification quoted on page 4 of the reply brief
merely provides an example of what may constitute “successive”
exposure of a plurality of cutting surfaces. The argument in the
second full paragraph on page 4 of the reply brief that
Sederberg’s rectangular cross blade does not allow for
“successive” exposure of four edges for shearing is not
persuasive because it is based on an unreasonably narrow
interpretation of the scope of the “indexable” “rotatable” and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007