Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
Claim interpretation
"Analysis begins with a key legal question--what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Several limitations in the claims require interpretation.
Substantial portion of two sides extending beyond the end of the shank
Independent claims 1, 2, and 16-18 recite "a substantial portion of the other
two sides of the insert extending beyond the end of the shank and forming a cutting
tip for cutting a workpiece" (claim 1 uses the spelling "work piece," but we use
"workpiece" for consistency with the other claims). Independent claims 10 and 11
recite "a substantial portion of the other two sides of the rhomboidal insert
extending beyond the respective end of the tool shank and defining at least one
cutting edge for cutting a workpiece." These are the only limitations argued by the
patent owner. The question is what is meant by a "substantial portion."
The '400 patent describes the tool insert as having four sides forming a
substantially rhomboidal or diamond shape, where "[e]ach first side 28 of the insert
is oriented at an acute angle B relative to a respective second side 30, and the
adjacent pairs of first and second sides each form a respective cutting tip 32 having
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007