Ex Parte Dudzinsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

12169051 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/169,051 07/08/2008
27877 7590 06/24/2016
KENNAMETAL INC
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. BOX231
1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY
LATROBE, PA 15650
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald L. Dudzinsky
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
K-2561USUS1 8577
EXAMINER
SWINNEY, JENNIFER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
larry.meenan@kennametal.com
k-corp. patents@kennametal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD L. DUDZINSKY, THOMAS J. LONG II,
and SHAWN E. FRYE
Appeal2014-004187
Application 12/169,051
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004187
Application 12/169,051
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a milling cutter with a cam pin and a
cutting insert therefor. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A milling cutter, comprising:
a shank;
an upper portion having an insert pocket and a cam pin
hole, the insert pocket including a bottom surface, a radial seating
surface and an axial seating surface;
a cutting insert mounted in the insert pocket, the cutting
insert having a top surface, a bottom surface, and a plurality of
side surfaces extending from the bottom surface to the top
surface, the cutting insert including a countersunk bore extending
from the top surface to the bottom surface, the cutting insert
further including a blind hole extending from the bottom surface;
and
a cam pin having one end rotatably mounted in the cam
pin hole, the other end of the cam pin including a raised boss
received in the blind hole of the cutting insert when the cutting
insert is mounted in the insert pocket, a center axis of the raised
boss being offset from a center axis of the cam pin, wherein
rotation of the cam pin causes the raised boss to directly engage
the blind hole in such a way so as to exert pressure against the
blind hole of the cutting insert, thereby causing one of the side
walls of the cutting insert to be forced against the radial seating
surface of the insert pocket.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Noggle
Hofmann
Johnson
Gamble
JP 4--223809
us 5,031,491
us 5,893,683
us 6,702,526
2
Mar. 28, 1991
July 16, 1991
Apr. 13, 1999
Mar. 9, 2004
Appeal2014-004187
Application 12/169,051
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Hofmann, and Gamble.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Hofmann, Gamble, and Noggle.
OPINION
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) requires that "[t]he arguments shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant." Appellants' first argument, that Gamble lacks a cam pin which
directly engages a cutting insert (App. Br. 9-10), and Appellants' third
argument, that Noggle also lacks such a feature (App. Br. 12), do not apprise
us of error in the Examiner's rejection because the Examiner does not rely
on Gamble or Noggle to teach such a feature. Ans. 6-7 (stating that
Hofmann was relied upon to teach this feature.); Ans. 9.
Appellants' remammg contention is that because Johnson expresses a
preference for a lateral clearance not exceeding 0.010 inches, "Johnson
teaches way from providing enough clearance for the reinforcement pin 46
to be modified as a cam pin." App. Br. 11. Appellants do not further explain
why they reach this conclusion. Presumably, Appellants consider the
absence of a clearance about pin 46 incompatible with a camming
arrangement (Hofmann's eccentric screw 13). However, although the
camming arrangement of Hofmann may allow for some clearance for
allowing the eccentric screw 13 to rotate, that rotation ultimately minimizes
or eliminates any slack or play about the screw 13 and minimizes or
1 We correct the Examiner's claim listing to be consistent with the
Examiner's discussion.
3
Appeal2014-004187
Application 12/169,051
eliminates clearance at the mating surfaces 16, 17, 18, 19 of the tool and
holder. Hofmann, col. 2, 1. 59-col. 3, 1. 6. We are not apprised of any
reason why the skilled artisan would understand Johnson's statement
regarding the desirability of minimizing clearance as critical or disparaging
of Hofmann's eccentric screw arrangement. As the Examiner correctly
points out, both of Johnson and Hofmann's arrangements similarly serve to
secure the insert in place. Ans. 7-9; see also Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Hofmann, col. 2, 1. 67---col. 3, 1. 2); Johnson, col. 4, 11. 8-9. Thus, Appellants
have not apprised us of sufficient evidence to find Johnson teaches away
from camming arrangements.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4