Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
7 mm or 8 mm. One known prior art approach for an 8mm is described in
connection with Fig. 1 (col. 2, lines 6-16):
As can be seen, the tool insert 3 is defined by an inscribed circle which is
approximately equal to the width of the shank 2 (8 mm), and the shank
defines a single tool-supporting edge 5 for engaging and supporting a
corresponding edge of the tool insert. One of the problems encountered with
this configuration is that if the insert is torqued in the clockwise direction in
FIG. 1, the tool insert may become relatively easily dislodged on the shank,
thus rendering the cutting tool ineffective and requiring time-consuming
breakdowns and set-up to either repair or replace the tool.
The solution in the '400 patent is to form a recess in the end of the shank which
supports two sides of the rhomboidal-shaped insert. The insert has an inscribed
circle diameter less that approximately 90% of the shank width so that the
thickness of a lip 24 that supports one side of the insert is at least 1 mm to provide
structural integrity to fixedly support the tool insert during machining operations
(col. 4, lines 41-56). The fastener has a countersunk head and the maximum
diameter of the head and the maximum diameter of the countersunk aperture is less
than 70% of the inscribed circle diameter to maintain the structural integrity of the
insert (col. 4, line 60, to col. 5, line 20). The issue is whether one of ordinary skill
in the art, having the references before him or her, would have arrived at the
claimed solution. The inventor is not a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
- 58 -
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007