Ex Parte Noggle - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-1538                                                                        
          Application No. 09/782,915                                                                  

          broaching, boring or reaming tool.  Independent claim 1 is                                  
          representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as                                 
          follows:                                                                                    
               1.  A device for adjusting the position of a cutting                                   
          insert adjustably secured in a pocket disposed in a holder,                                 
          comprising:                                                                                 
               a cavity in said holder, at least a portion of said cavity                             
          being contiguous with said pocket;                                                          
               an intermediate component separate from said holder and                                
          disposed within said cavity, said intermediate component                                    
          comprising an external peripheral surface and at least one                                  
          expansion mechanism, said external peripheral surface engaging                              
          the insert at said contiguous portion, and                                                  
               a wedging device movably attached directly to said holder                              
          and engaging the intermediate component such that actuation of                              
          the wedging device results in expansion of the intermediate                                 
          component in a direction substantially parallel to a                                        
          desired direction of adjustment of the insert.                                              
          The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in                                     
          rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                          
          Matthews     3,703,117    Nov. 21, 1972                                                     
          Basteck     5,391,023    Feb. 21, 1995                                                      
                                                                                                     
          Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                               
          being unpatentable over Basteck in view of Matthews.                                        

          Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary                                  
          with regard to the above-noted rejection and the conflicting                                
          viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding the                             
                                          2                                                           











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007