Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
diameter, whereas claim 11 recites a diameter that is "within the range of
approximately 5.5 mm through 6.5 mm." Nikcole also does not disclose a "head
having a maximum diameter within the range of approximately 3 mm through
4.5 mm."
The difference between the subject matter of claim 17 and Nikcole is that
Nikcole does not teach the limitation "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 difference between the subject matter of claim 18 and Nikcole is that
Nikcole does not teach the limitation "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."
Objective evidence of nonobviousness
Objective evidence of nonobviousness (also called "secondary
considerations") must always be considered in making an obviousness decision,
Stratoflex v. Aeroquip, 713 F.2d at 1538, 218 USPQ at 879, although it need not be
necessarily conclusive on the issue of obviousness, Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
- 50 -
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007