Ex Parte Dudzinsky et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201713296302 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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. 13/296,302 11/15/2011 Ronald Louis Dudzinsky K-4053USUS1 5741 27877 7590 10/03/2017 KFNNAMFTAT TNC EXAMINER Intellectual Property Department P.O. BOX 231 SNYDER, ALAN W 1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY LATROBE, PA 15650 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2017 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): 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 LOUIS DUDZINSKY and KONRAD SPITZENBERGER Appeal 2016-000663 Application 13/296,302 Technology Center 3700 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—11. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Kennametal, Inc.” (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2016-000663 Application 13/296,302 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants’ invention relates “to a double-sided, indexable cutting insert that is capable of performing milling and ramping operations.” (Spec. 11.) Illustrative Claim 1. A double-sided, indexable cutting insert for a milling cutter, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, a countersunk bore extending entirely through from the first surface to the second surface, a first pair of opposing side surfaces and a second pair of opposing side surfaces, each of the second pair of opposing side surfaces including a first planar facet surface and a second planar facet surface, the second planar facet surface being radially inward with respect to the first planar facet surface, the first surface including a seating surface defining a plane; a major cutting edge defined at an intersection between each of the first and second surfaces and each of the first pair of opposing side surfaces for a total of four (4) major cutting edges; a comer radius connecting each of the first pair of opposing side surfaces to each of the second pair of opposing side surfaces, and a tangency point delineating the comer radius from the first pair of opposing side surfaces; a minor cutting edge defined at an intersection between each of the first and second surfaces and a first planar facet surface of each of the second pair of opposing side surfaces for a total of four (4) minor cutting edges; and a first ramping cutting edge defined at the intersection between the second surface and the first planar facet surface, and a second ramping cutting edge defined at the intersection between the first surface and the second planar facet surface for a total of four (4) ramping cutting edges, wherein the cutting insert is capable of performing both milling and ramping cutting operations. 2 Appeal 2016-000663 Application 13/296,302 Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sung2 and Bhagath.3 (Final Action 2.) ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2—6 and 8—11) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1 and 7 recite a “double-sided” cutting insert having four “major cutting edges,” four “minor cutting edges,” and four “ramping cutting edges.” {Id.) The Examiner finds that Sung discloses a single-sided cutting insert 200 having two major cutting edges 230, two minor cutting edges 240, and two ramping cutting edges 250. (See Final Action 2—3.) And the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Bhagath, to modify Sung’s cutting insert 200 to have a reversible structure “to double the amount of usable cutting edges, and thereby double the life of the insert.” (Final Action 3.) According to the Examiner, such a modification would result in Sung’s cutting insert 200 having four major cutting edges 230, four minor cutting edges 240, and four ramping cutting edges 250. (See Answer 3—4.) The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification would not have been obvious. (See Appeal Br. 11—12.) We are persuaded by the Appellants’ position because the Examiner’s proposed modification, as we understand it, would require Sung’s lower surface 205 to have a 2 US 8,043,031 B2, issued Oct. 25, 2011. 3 US 2008/0232912 A1 published Sept. 25, 2008. 3 Appeal 2016-000663 Application 13/296,302 profile that mirrors the profile of its upper surface 201. (See Answer 3.) And we agree with the Appellants that the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why, in the modified version of Sung’s cutting insert 200, the lower surface 205 could still be “stably and securely seated onto and fastened to the cutting body 300.” (Reply Br. 4.) In Sung’s disclosed cutting insert 200, “only [the] upper surface 201 is used when cutting,” and “chip breakers 202 are provided only on the upper surface 201.” (Sung, col. 4,11. 2—5; see also Figs. 2, 3.) The lower surface 205 is “seated onto and fastened to the cutting body 300,” thus it is shaped so that this seating and fastening of the cutting insert 200 can be “stably and securely” accomplished. (Sung, col. 5,11. 3—5.) Sung’s upper surface 201 appears to have inclined top edges and a central recess forming the chip breakers 202. (See id.. Figs. 4, 5.) In contrast, Sung’s lower surface 205 appears to have a completely flat profile. (See id.) If Sung’s cutting insert 200 was modified as proposed by the Examiner, the profile of the lower surface 205 would mirror the profile of the upper surface 201. In other words, Sung’s lower surface 205 would be profiled to have inclined edges and recessed to form chip breakers 202. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the seating surface of Sung’s cutting tool 300 would accommodate this non-flat profile without compromising stability and fastening security. (See Reply Br. 4.) The Examiner does maintain that Bhagath “recognizes and addresses the concerns of stability and security of the cutting insert being inserted into an insert pocket, and maintains the perpendicularity of the abutment surface and side surfaces of the cutting insert.” (Answer 10.) Bhagath discloses a cutting insert 100 having a “square footprint” and an “abutment surface 108” 4 Appeal 2016-000663 Application 13/296,302 comprising a “four abutment pads 130.” (Bhagath 145; see also Fig. 1.) However, Sung’s cutting insert 200 has a non-square, and very different, footprint (compare Sung, Fig. 2 and Bhagath, Fig. 1); and the Examiner does not adequately address how Bhagath-like abutment pads could or would be incorporated into surfaces 201 and 205 of Sung’s modified cutting insert. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, and the claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sung and Bhagath. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation