Appeal 2007-1195
Application 10/381,340
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jenny
in view of Hauptmann.
ISSUES
The Appellants contend that the claimed side lip must be interpreted to
necessarily including a cutting edge, and using this interpretation, Jenny does not
disclose a side lip as claimed, because Jenny does not teach a cutting or sharp edge
present on a longitudinal side of the working portion of the tool (Appeal Br. 5-6).
The Appellants further contend that Jenny does not teach an insertion chisel
wherein the main lip and side lip have cutting edges which lie in a common plane,
as recited in claim 3 (Appeal Br. 7). The Appellants further contend that the
combination of Jenny and Hauptmann does not render obvious the subject matter
of claim 4, because the combination does not disclose a side lip having a cutting
edge, and because the Examiner provides no motivation to combine Jenny with
Hauptmann (Appeal Br. 11).
The Examiner found that Figures 1 and 2 of Jenny “clearly show side cutting
edges of the blade 1” and because a blade is the cutting part of an instrument, “the
blade 1 of Jenny is determined to have a main cutting edge 2 and two side cutting
edges as the cutting part of the chisel” (Answer 4). The Examiner further found
that “Fig. 1 and 2 of Jenny clearly show the main cutting edge 2 and two side
cutting edges lie on a common plane” (Id.). Finally, the Examiner determined that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the chisel head of Jenny with a side lip having a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013