Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
art and therefore is not presumed to be aware of all prior art solutions to the
problem.
To simplify the analysis, we assume that the claims are directed to vertical
tools and that claims 16-18 require the tool shank in combination with a tool insert.
There are at least three ways to approach the motivation and obviousness question.
(1)
First, one of ordinary skill in the machine tool art seeking to design a
small-shank tool having a width of approximately 9 mm, as recited in claims 1, 2,
and 16-18, would have been motivated to simply reduce the 0.375" (= 9.5 mm)
width of the shanks in Max Bar or ETCO to 9 mm, since these claims do not
require any change in dimension of the 0.312" (= 7.9 mm) inscribed circle
diameter. Although we consider that the problem suggests the solution to one of
ordinary skill in the art, Nikcole and Kyocera also would have informed those of
ordinary skill in the art that a shank with a width smaller than 9.5 mm and having
the insert supported by two surfaces of a recess was a known solution to making a
small-shank tool. The only limitations not expressly met would be the dimensions
of the fastener aperture and the fastener head diameter, because they are not
- 59 -
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007