Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
We interpret claims 17 and 18 to be directed to a "tool insert" alone. The
tool shank limitations and the relationship between the insert and the shank are
interpreted to be statements of intended use, i.e., the claims are directed to a "tool
insert for a small-shank tool." The tool shank only imposes dimensional
limitations on the inscribed circle diameter and the fastener aperture diameter of
the insert. Thus, the examiner's erroneous finding that a substantial portion of the
sides of the insert in Kyocera extend beyond the end of the tool shank does not
affect the analysis. We also interpret that claims 17 and 18 do not expressly claim
a "vertical" insert structure, and are broad enough to read on a "profiling" insert.
Kyocera discloses a profiling insert with a 55° acute angle between sides.
The sole difference between the subject matter of claim 17 and Kyocera is that
claim 17 recites "wherein the two sides of the insert engaging the tool-supporting
surfaces are oriented at an angle of approximately 35° relative to each other." The
sole difference between the subject matter of claim 18 and Kyocera is that claim 18
recites "wherein the two sides of the insert extending beyond the end of the shank
are oriented at an angle of approximately 35° relative to each other."
- 32 -
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007