Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915
In the obviousness rejection before us on appeal the
examiner begins with the prior art adjusting device of Basteck,
urging that it discloses the claimed invention except for the
requirement for the wedging device to be “movably attached
directly to said holder.” The examiner looks to the Matthews
patent to supply that deficiency, contending that Matthews
teaches an expansion mechanism in a cavity of a tool holder (4),
wherein the mechanism includes an expansion device having arms
(22, 20) and a wedging device (26) movably attached directly to
the holder (Fig. 2). The examiner then concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant’s invention “to modify the wedging device and holder
as taught by Basteck to include the wedging device movably
attached directly to the holder as taught by Matthews to
threadedly engage the holder for the purpose of ensuring that
the cutting insert is effectively wedge-locked against accidental
removal from the tool holder and to provide maximum strength and
rigidity” (answer, pages 4-5).
Appellant contends that the prior art relied upon by the
examiner fails to provide an adequate teaching, suggestion or
motivation for the combination urged by the examiner. More
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007