Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281
(e) claims 1-4, 12, and 13 over Kohama in view of Li; and
(f) claims 1-3, 12, and 13 over Madsen in view of Li.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the § 102 rejections over Kohama and Madsen. As
appreciated by the Examiner, both Kohama and Madsen, although directed
to trimming apparatus comprising steady and moving blades, are silent with
respect to a radius being provided on the leading edge of the moving blade.
However, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination
that Hambli evidences that all cutting blades, even new ones, possess a
radius on its leading edge. In particular, Hambli discloses that the cutting
edge radius for a new blade is 0.01 mm.
Appellants’ principal contention is that “the term radius when utilized
in the present application has a definition of a radius greater than 0.1 mm”
(Reply Br. 2, second para.). Appellants maintain that during prosecution of
the present application they have repeatedly made a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer that the claimed radius must be greater than 0.1 mm. However, a
fundamental principle of patent jurisprudence is that limitations may not be
read into a claim from the specification or elsewhere. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Omega Eng’g Inc. v. Raytek
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013