Appeal No. 2005-0879
Application No. 09/822,136
the cutting edge angle of these cutting implements beyond that
which is depicted in their respective drawings.
In making the rejection based on Mathein, the examiner
submits that
[i]t is acknowledged that dimensions may not be taken
directly from patent drawings since they are not
engineering drawings. However, “The drawings must be
evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Aslanian,
200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), MPEP 2125. It would appear
that Mathein suggests that the disc should be rather
thick and have a rather large edge angle. Since this
is within or similar to the [range] claimed, 40-50
degrees, . . . it would have been an obvious matter to
set such [range] as being within normal parameters of
conventionality dependent on the size of the blade, the
material from which it is made, its rotating speed,
what material is being cut, the developed friction, and
how often it is desired to replace the blade [answer,
pages 3 and 4].
The rejection predicated on Jahn has a similar rationale
(see page 4 in the answer).
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a
factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
177-78 (CCPA 1967). In making such a rejection, the examiner has
the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may
not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007