Ex Parte HughesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201712401211 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/401,211 03/10/2009 Donald R. Hughes 090023 5431 26285 7590 09/14/2017 KfrT flATRS T T P-Pimhnrah EXAMINER 210 SIXTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15222-2613 SWINNEY, JENNIFER B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2017 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): USpatentmail@klgates.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONALD R. HUGHES Appeal 2015-0072331 Application 12/401,2112 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Dec. 17, 2014), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 28, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 28, 2015), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 10, 2014). 2 Appellant identifies Greenleaf Technology Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2015-007233 Application 12/401,211 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “cutting tools including a mechanism for adjusting replaceable cutting inserts mounted on the cutting tool.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim, and is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 1. A cutting tool comprising: a cutting tool body including at least one recess adapted for mounting a removable cutting insert therein, the recess including two locating surfaces positioned at an acute angle relative to each other; and a cutting insert retaining and adjusting mechanism associated with the recess and including, a nest slidably mounted in the recess, the nest including a single cutting insert pocket, wherein the nest further includes a side wall and a bottom wall positioned at an acute angle relative to each other and that engage and slidably move along the two locating surfaces of the recess when the nest is slidably mounted in the recess, wherein only the side wall and the bottom wall of the nest contact the recess of the cutting tool body, a first wedge adapted to selectively exert pressure on the nest and retain the nest in a desired position in the recess, a second wedge adapted to selectively exert pressure on a cutting insert positioned in the cutting insert pocket and retain the cutting insert in a desired position, and an adjustment screw having a first threaded portion and a second threaded portion, the first threaded portion threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the cutting tool body, the second threaded portion threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the nest, wherein the first threaded portion has the same handedness but a different thread pitch as the second threaded portion, wherein rotation of the adjustment screw axially slidably linearly advances and retracts the nest in the recess, and wherein the adjustment screw only threadedly engages the cutting tool body and the nest. 2 Appeal 2015-007233 Application 12/401,211 REJECTION Claims 1—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaiser (US 3,434,193, iss. Mar. 25, 1969), Gamble (US 6,702,526 B2, iss. Mar. 9, 2004), Mizutani (US 6,789,983 B2, iss. Sept. 14, 2004), and Kalokhe (US 4,428,704, iss. Jan. 31, 1984). ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Kalokhe, does not disclose or suggest, an adjustment screw having a first threaded portion and a second threaded portion, the first threaded portion threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the cutting tool body, the second threaded portion threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the nest, wherein the first threaded portion has the same handedness but a different thread pitch as the second threaded portion, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 17—30; see also Reply Br. 9-14. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kaiser discloses an “adjusting screw (33) disposed in the tool body (24),” but acknowledges that Kaiser’s adjusting screw 33 does not disclose the claimed first and second threaded portions. Ans. 6. To cure the deficiency, the Examiner relies on Kalokhe. See Ans. 6 (“Kalokhe teaches a screw disposed in a nest (22) and the tool body (20)”). By way of background, Kalokhe relates to a tool cartridge 14 that is fastened to a boring bar 10 for line boring operations. Kalokhe, Abstract, col. 1,11. 53—56. The boring bar 10 has an open recess extending along a long axis, and a tool cartridge 14 mounted in the recess. Id. at claim 1, Fig. 1. Cartridge 14 has two legs 20, 22 separated by a recess 24. Id. at col. 1,11. 3 Appeal 2015-007233 Application 12/401,211 56—58. A differential screw 44 has first and second threaded portions 46A, 46B, which are disposed in legs 20, 22 of cartridge 14, respectively. See id. at Figs. 1—2, col. 2,11. 36-48. The Examiner equates Kalokhe’s cartridge leg 20 as the claimed “tool body,” and cartridge leg 22 as the claimed “nest.” Ans. 6. Yet, cartridge legs 20, 22 are legs of the same cartridge, and do not reasonably constitute the claimed tool body and nest. Instead, we find that Kalokhe’s boring bar 10 would constitute the claimed “tool body including at least one recess adapted for mounting a removable cutting insert,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 18 (“boring bar (10). . . would be considered the ‘tool body’ of the Kalokhe device”). Because first threaded portion 46A of screw 44 engages leg 20 of the cartridge, second threaded portion 46B engages leg 22 of the cartridge, and neither threaded portion 46A, 46B is disposed in boring bar 10, Kalokhe fails to disclose or suggest that first threaded portion 46A is “threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the cutting tool body,” as required by claim 1. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds “threaded screw (33) of Kaiser is not disposed in nest (28),” and “Kalokhe and Mizutani both teach a threaded screw disposed in a nest.” Ans. 13. But Mizutani also fails to cure the deficiencies of Kaiser. Mizutani relates to a clamping mechanism for a cutting insert used in a rotary cutting tool. Mizutani, col. 1,11. 6—8. Insert 22 and adjustment screw 29 are fixed to a cartridge 23. Id. at col. 7,11. 42-45. Cartridge 23 is inserted into a cartridge-receiving recess 27 in tool body 21, and positioned such that the head of adjusting screw 29 is in contact with positioning piece 30. Id. at col. 5,11. 45—53, Fig. 2A. Turning adjusting screw 29 adjusts the position of 4 Appeal 2015-007233 Application 12/401,211 cartridge 23 when the head of the adjusting screw 29 abuts positioning piece 30. Id. at col. 4,11. 17—20. Mizutani’s adjusting screw 29, like the screw of Kaiser, only has one threaded portion. Like the screw of Kalokhe, Mizutani’s screw is only disposed in the cartridge, not the tool body. The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill “would have looked to Kalokhe and [Mizutani] for the teaching of disposing the screw in the nest to facilitate axial[] adjustment of the nest.” Ans. 13. But it is not readily apparent, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kaiser’s screw, which is threadedly disposed only in the tool body, based on the screws of Kalokhe and Mizutani, which each is threadedly disposed only in a cartridge, to arrive at the claimed adjustment screw having a “first threaded portion threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the cutting tool body,” and a “second threaded portion threadedly disposed in a threaded bore in the nest,” as recited in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2—15, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation