Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281
obviousness of employing a cutting edge having a radius of 0.01 mm in
order to reduce cutting defects. Also, as explained by the Examiner, Hambli
provides evidence that the cutting edges of Kohama and Madsen, after some
use, would have a radius of 0.2 mm, which value is within the greater than
0.1 mm asserted by Appellants for the claimed radius.
We also agree with the Examiner that Bennett and Li provide
additional evidence that it was known in the art of cutting or trimming
blanks to employ a cutting edge having a radius. As set forth by the
Examiner, Bennett expressly states that “[t]he provision of a radiused or
rounding on the operating edges of the die 1 is crucial to the provision of a
smooth edged stamping” (col. 8, ll. 40-42). We find no merit in Appellants’
argument that Bennett teaches a punch apparatus, not a trimming apparatus,
and that Bennett teaches no radius on the moving portions of the apparatus.
We concur with the Examiner that the claimed trimming apparatus and
operation does not exclude punching operations from the scope of the
appealed claims. Appellants have not established on this record any
distinction in the art between trimming an endpiece off a blank and trimming
the periphery away from a punched area. While Appellants maintain that
trimming and punching operations involve different parameters, Appellants
have proffered no objective evidence which elevates the assertion beyond
the status argument of counsel. Moreover, we emphasize that the claimed
trimming apparatus and method is not limited to cutting off an endpiece.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013