Ex Parte Sharivker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2016

13245013 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/245,013 09/26/2011
27877 7590 11/17/2016
KENNAMETAL INC
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. BOX231
1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY
LATROBE, PA 15650
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Leonid Boris Sharivker
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-2973USUS1 4961
EXAMINER
RUFO,RYANC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 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 LEONID BORIS SHARIVKER and
SERGEI VLADIMIR BOULAKHOV
Appeal2015-000697
Application 13/245,013
Technology Center 3700
Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hiyama (JP
2003-300112, pub. Oct. 21, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-000697
Application 13/245,013
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a milling cutter for cutting a ninety-degree
shoulder in a workpiece. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A milling cutter, comprising:
a shank portion;
a cutting portion having a cylindrical outer surface, the
cutting portion defining an axis of rotation of the cutter about a
central, longitudinal axis;
at least one major cutting edge extending from an end face
toward the shank portion;
at least one minor cutting edge disposed at the end face of
the cutting portion, the end face defining an outer diameter, D,
of the milling cutter;
a comer formed at an intersection of the end face and the
relief surface; and
a relief surface formed on the cylindrical outer surface
proximate the comer and extending from the end face toward the
shank portion,
wherein the comer is formed at an angle less than 90°, and
wherein the relief surface is parallel to the central,
longitudinal axis of the milling cutter such that the at least one
major cutting edge cuts a perfect 90° shoulder in a workpiece
during a machining operation.
OPINION
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, claims 2, 4, and 5 being
dependent therefrom.
Appellants argue that claim 1 is not anticipated because Hiyama does
not teach "a cutting portion having a cylindrical outer surface" or "a relief
surface (30) formed on the cylindrical outer surface (19)" together with the
claimed features of the relief surface. Appeal Br. 7.
2
Appeal2015-000697
Application 13/245,013
Appellants argue that "Hiyama is directed to a gash arrangement to
strengthen the blade tip," but nowhere discloses the claimed relief surface.
Id. at 8. Appellants also note that the only support for the Examiner's
position is a marked-up copy of the figures of Hiyama with an arrow
pointing to a comer of the cutter, but again does not identify the claimed
relief surface. Id. at 8-9.
The Examiner responds by arguing that gash surfaces and relief
surfaces are not mutually exclusive and asserting that Hiyama does disclose
the claimed relief surface. Answer 3. The Examiner further explains that
relief surfaces are disclosed "at the comers behind the major cutting edges,
extending toward the shank ... i.e., the angled portion adjacent directly
behind the side cutting edge." Answer 4. And that "[t]he cited figures
indeed show the taper of the relief surface behind the cutting edge on the
outer cylindrical surface." Id.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Ind. V. Union Oil Col. of Cal., 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Examiner relies upon the annotated copy of
Hiyama's Figures 2A-B and 3A-B, reproduced below:
3
Appeal2015-000697
Application 13/245,013
Figs. 2A-B are schematic diagrams showing one embodiment of a
square end mill and Figs. 3A-B are schematic diagrams showing another
embodiment of a square end mill. The Examiner relies upon the arrows
added to these Figures to identify the portion of Hiyama that corresponds to
the limitation at issue. See Final Act. 2. However, it is unclear how
Hiyama's relief surface which the Examiner states is an "angled portion"
that "taper[ s] ... behind the cutting edge" is also a "parallel to the central,
longitudinal axis of the milling cutter" as required by the claim as the
drawings do not clearly show these features. Thus, the Examiner's finding
is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.
For this reason we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 5,
which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 is reversed.
4
Appeal2015-000697
Application 13/245,013
REVERSED
5