Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
Claims 16 and 19
We have interpreted "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" in claim 16 to be a statement of intended use that is not entitled to
patentable weight because the tool shank is not positively recited in combination in
claim 16 and the relationship between the tool insert and the tool shank with which
it is intended to be used does not limit the structure of the tool insert. Thus, patent
owner's argument is not persuasive of error. We also interpret that these claims do
not positively recite the structure of a "vertical" insert. The structure of the tool
insert alone is anticipated by the tool insert in Kyocera. Thus, the rejection of
claims 16 and 19 is sustained.
Obviousness
Claims 2 and 11
Independent claim 2 contains the same limitation of "a substantial portion of
the other two sides of the insert extending beyond the end of the shank" as recited
in claim 1. Independent claim 11 contains the same limitation of "a substantial
portion of the other two sides of the rhomboidal insert extending beyond the
- 30 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007