Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
insert and the tool shank in the claim bodies do not limit the tool insert structure
and are not limitations for determining patentability. Thus, for example, the
limitation in claims 16-18, "a substantial portion of the other two sides of the insert
extending outwardly beyond the end of the shank and forming a cutting tip for
cutting a workpiece," is a statement of an intended relationship between the insert
and tool shank when the insert is eventually installed on a tool shank, but it does
not limit the structure of the tool insert and is not a claim limitation. This
interpretation is consistent with Stencel, where a claim to a "driver" was limited as
to structure defined by the structure of a "collar" with deformable lobes in the
preamble. Since use of the tool insert with the tool shank is an intended use, it is
not necessary to show the limitations of the tool shank or relationship between the
tool insert and the tool shank: it is only necessary to find a the tool insert structure
capable of fitting in a tool shank structure as described in the claims and satisfying
the 90% and 70% limitations.
Rhomboidal-shaped
Independent claims 1 and 2 recite "an approximately rhomboidal-shaped
tool insert"; independent claims 10 and 11 recite "a generally rhomboidal-shaped
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007