Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
narrow space for the KYOCERA's tool during a cutting process" (FR18), i.e., that
a 35° insert is narrower than a 55° insert (compare SVAB tool in Kennametal with
the SDJC tool in Kyocera) and increases the allowable depth of cut, reflects a
cutting tool design consideration and has not been argued to be erroneous. We
have considered patent owner's evidence of commercial success and copying but,
as discussed in the new ground of rejection, we find that the evidence lacks any
nexus to the merits of the claimed invention and is not entitled to any weight in the
obviousness determination. The combination of Kyocera and Kennametal
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Patent owner does not argue that substitution of a 35° angle for a 55° angle
would have been nonobvious. Instead, patent owner argues that the combination
of Kyocera and Kennametal does not meet the limitation requiring that a
substantial portion of two sides of the insert extend beyond the end of the tool
shank to form a cutting tip, because both are profiling tools (Br11-12). This
argument is not persuasive because claims 17 and 18 are directed to the insert
alone and the relationship between the insert and the tool shank is a statement of
intended use that is not entitled to any patentable weight. It is sufficient that the
- 34 -
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007