Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
requisite structural integrity for performing all machining operations. There
was also a concern that reducing the size of our insert, and reducing the
width of the portion of the shank holding the insert (in comparison to the
prior art club-foot small-shank tools) would provide insufficient surface area
engaging the sides of the insert in order to fixedly secure the insert during all
machining operations. In addition, there was also a concern that reducing
the dimensions of the inserts in the manner claimed would cause the tool to
fail to provide a sufficient depth of cut. Moreover, I was concerned that
reducing the dimensions of an insert in the manner claimed would cause the
insert to have insufficient locating surface area, and that the insert would
fracture under the necessary torque that would be applied to the screw when
attaching the insert to the shank.
9. In light of these and possibly other concerns, the machine tool
industry had in the past taken a quite different approach to constructing
small-shank tools than that of my invention. Rather than reduce the
dimensions of the insert, and construct the insert and shank having the
relative dimensions as recited in the claims, the machine tool industry either
(i) expanded the dimensions of the shank as in the club foot tool to support a
large insert, (ii) secured a relatively large insert to the shank having a width
equal to the inscribed circle of the insert, as shown in Fig. 1 in the
application, or (iii) brazed the carbide tool bit to the end of the shank. In
each case, the machine tool industry refused to provide an insert having
reduced dimensions and, in effect, took an approach opposite to that of my
invention. In light of this, it was simply not obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the machine tool industry construct a small-shank tool as recited in
the claims of my application.
These statements are not persuasive as to the present rejection of claims 1, 2,
8, 9, and 16-18 because these claims do not require any modification of the 0.312"
(= 7.9 mm) inscribed circle diameter in Max Bar and ETCO. Reducing the width
- 61 -
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007