Appeal No. 2006-2084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,360
of the prior art shanks in Max Bar and ETCO from 9.5 mm to "less than
approximately 9 mm" does not require reducing the inscribed circle diameter and
would still provide a lip of 9 mm - 7.9 mm = 1.1 mm. The fact that the prior art
taught other solutions, such as a club foot or a shank having a width equal to the
inscribed circle diameter of the insert does not teach away from the claimed
solution.
Thus, claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 16-18 are unpatentable over Max Bar or ETCO.
(2)
Second, a more comprehensive approach is to address the obviousness of the
narrower claims requiring an 8 mm shank width, such as independent claims 10
and 11, which will then satisfy the broader claims requiring a width of
approximately 9 mm. One of ordinary skill in the machine tool art seeking to
design an 8 mm small-shank tool that overcomes the problem of the prior art 8 mm
tool in Fig. 1, would have been motivated to scale down the 9.5 mm square tool
shank and insert with a 0.312" (= 7.9 mm) inscribed circle (IC) diameter in either
Max Bar or ETCO to provide an 8 mm square shank and a 7 mm IC diameter insert
as taught in the vertical tool in Nikcole or an 8 mm square shank and an 0.250" IC
- 62 -
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007