Ex Parte Noggle

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2006

09782915 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH G. NOGGLE

____________

Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915
____________

HEARD: June 6, 2006
____________

Before FRANKFORT, CRAWFORD, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 7. Claims 20 through 32, the only
other claims remaining in the application, stand allowed. Claims
8 through 19 have been cancelled.

Appellant’s invention relates to a device for adjusting the
position of a cutting edge of an insert secured to the body of a
multiple insert tool, such as a rotary cutter, or a rotary
Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915

2

broaching, boring or reaming tool. Independent claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows:
1. A device for adjusting the position of a cutting
insert adjustably secured in a pocket disposed in a holder,
comprising:

a cavity in said holder, at least a portion of said cavity
being contiguous with said pocket;

an intermediate component separate from said holder and
disposed within said cavity, said intermediate component
comprising an external peripheral surface and at least one
expansion mechanism, said external peripheral surface engaging
the insert at said contiguous portion, and

a wedging device movably attached directly to said holder
and engaging the intermediate component such that actuation of
the wedging device results in expansion of the intermediate
component in a direction substantially parallel to a
desired direction of adjustment of the insert.

The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in

rejecting the appealed claims are:

Matthews 3,703,117 Nov. 21, 1972
Basteck 5,391,023 Feb. 21, 1995

Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Basteck in view of Matthews.

Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with regard to the above-noted rejection and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding the
Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915

3

rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed December 21,
2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to appellant’s brief (filed November 18, 2005) and reply
brief (filed February 8, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination which follows.

As noted on pages 2-3 of appellant’s specification, Basteck
discloses a prior art device for adjusting the position of a
cutting edge of an insert (18) secured to the body (12) of a
multiple insert tool, such as a reamer, wherein the cutter insert
is adjusted by use of a sleeve or pin (32) having a slotted end
which is expandable by the tapered head (39) of a wedging screw
(37). The sleeve or pin (32) is force fit into a bore in the
tool body, and the wedging screw (37) engages an internal thread
(36) on the sleeve to draw the tapered head of the screw into the
sleeve to deform the upper slotted portion of the sleeve thereby
Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915

4

applying an adjusting force on the cutter insert to move the
insert longitudinally along the guide slot (17) of the tool body
and provide a sensitive, accurate, fine adjustment of the
position of the cutter in the longitudinal direction of the guide
slot. Appellant also describes certain disadvantages or
drawbacks associated with the adjustment device of Basteck.

To overcome the drawbacks noted when using an adjustment
device like that in Basteck, appellant provides a cutter
insert adjusting device (Figs. 1-6) comprising, inter alia, an
intermediate component (50) separate from the holder or tool body
(12) and received in a cavity in the holder adjacent the pocket
carrying the cutter insert, the intermediate component having an
external peripheral surface (60) and at least one expansion
mechanism (slots 54), the external surface engaging the cutter
insert (14); and a wedging device (70) movably attached directly
to the holder or tool body (12) via fine threads (74) and also
engaging the intermediate component such that actuation of the
wedging device results in expansion of the intermediate component
in a direction substantially parallel to a desired direction of
adjustment of the cutter insert.

Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915

5

In the obviousness rejection before us on appeal the
examiner begins with the prior art adjusting device of Basteck,
urging that it discloses the claimed invention except for the
requirement for the wedging device to be “movably attached
directly to said holder.” The examiner looks to the Matthews
patent to supply that deficiency, contending that Matthews
teaches an expansion mechanism in a cavity of a tool holder (4),
wherein the mechanism includes an expansion device having arms
(22, 20) and a wedging device (26) movably attached directly to
the holder (Fig. 2). The examiner then concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant’s invention “to modify the wedging device and holder
as taught by Basteck to include the wedging device movably
attached directly to the holder as taught by Matthews to
threadedly engage the holder for the purpose of ensuring that
the cutting insert is effectively wedge-locked against accidental
removal from the tool holder and to provide maximum strength and
rigidity” (answer, pages 4-5).

Appellant contends that the prior art relied upon by the
examiner fails to provide an adequate teaching, suggestion or
motivation for the combination urged by the examiner. More
Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915

6

particularly, appellant points out that the wedging/clamping
devices (20) of Matthews, pointed to by the examiner, are
specifically designed and used for securing the knife blade (5)
of Matthews’ paper cutter in the trough (2) of the cylindrical
revolver (4), while it is the pusher-part knife supports (30)
that are used to adjust the position of the knife blade relative
to the trough (2). See column 3, lines 1-60, and Figures 1-3 of
Matthews. Thus, appellant urges that the wedging/clamping
devices (20) of Matthews perform the function of the clamping
jaws (19) of Basteck and would therefore not have been viewed by
one of ordinary skill in the art as a replacement for the cutter
adjusting devices (32, 37) used in Basteck’s machine reamer to
adjust the position of the cutter insert (18) longitudinally of
the guide slot (17). The essence of appellant’s argument is that
the examiner has improperly used hindsight in an attempt to
reconstruct the claimed invention from disparate teachings in the
prior art. A careful review of the Basteck and Matthews patents
shows that appellant is correct in his assessment of the § 103
rejection before us on appeal.

In light of the foregoing, the rejection of independent
claim 1, and of claims 2 through 7 which depend therefrom, under
Appeal No. 2006-1538
Application No. 09/782,915

7

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Thus, the decision of
the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )

CEF/jrg
Comment [jvn1]: Type or Paste
Address