Frederick John. Palmer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 7, 2020

14660977 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2020)

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.
14/660,977 03/18/2015 Frederick John Palmer K-4433USUS1 5118
27877 7590 08/07/2020
KENNAMETAL INC.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. BOX 231
1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY
LATROBE, PA 15650
EXAMINER
RUFO, RYAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2020 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):
k-corp.patents@kennametal.com
larry.meenan@kennametal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERICK JOHN PALMER, X. DANIEL FANG, JEAN-
LUC DUFOUR, and DAVID J. WILLS
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 6–22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kennametal, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates to an endmill with a convex ramping
edge.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An endmill having a longitudinal cutting axis,
comprising:
a cutting edge portion including:
a nose corner adjacent to a cutting periphery of the
endmill;
a convex cutting edge having an end adjacent to
the nose corner and an opposing end closer to the
longitudinal cutting axis;
a straight cutting edge having a first end adjacent
to the opposing end of the convex cutting edge and a
second end closer to the longitudinal cutting axis; and
a convex ramping edge adjacent to the second end
of the straight cutting edge, wherein the convex ramping
edge has an end disposed at or about the longitudinal
cutting axis; and wherein a radius of the convex ramping
edge is in the range of about 0.25 mm to about 15 mm.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Magill US 6,056,485 May 2, 2000
Astrom US 6,196,770 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
Van Iperen US Pub. No.,
2011/0299947 A1
Dec. 8, 2011
Seong KR 10-2010-0064703 June 15, 2010

Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

3
REJECTIONS
1) The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 6–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being indefinite.
2) The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
as being of improper dependent form.
3) The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 6–17, and 19–22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Seong and Astrom.
4) The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Seong, Astrom, and Van Iperen.
5) The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 6–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Seong and Magill.
OPINION
Rejection of Claims 1–3 and 6–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner determined that the recitation in independent claims 1,
12, and 20 “that the convex ramping edge has an end that is ‘at or about’ the
longitudinal cutting axis” is unclear because, according to the Examiner, the
phrase has at least two reasonable meanings. Final Act. 2–3.2 Appellant
does not address this rejection and consequently waived any argument of
error. Appeal Br. 5. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection. See
Appeal Br. 9; In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding
that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,

2 For the purposes of analyzing the prior art rejections, the Examiner
construes this phrase to mean “near.” Final Act. 3; see also id. at 4
(referencing “dictionary.com” to define “at”). Appellant does not contend
that the Examiner’s construction is erroneous. See Appeal Br. 5–7.
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

4
second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on
appeal).
Rejection of Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 as being of improper
dependent form because the recitation “of an end of the convex ramping
edge being ‘at’ the longitudinal cutting edge fails to further limit the claimed
invention of Claims 1 and 12.” Final Act. 4. Appellant does not address this
rejection and consequently waived any argument of error. Appeal Br. 5.
Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection.
Rejection of Claims 1–3, 6–17 and 19–22 as Unpatentable over Seong
and Astrom
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 6–17, and 19–22 as a group. See Appeal
Br. 5–7. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2, 3, 6–17, and 19–
22 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Seong discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 except “a convex ramping edge adjacent to the second end of the
straight cutting edge such that it is also at (i.e., near) or about (i.e., near) the
longitudinal axis.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that Seong’s
“straight cutting edge, from which a ramping edge would extend, is near the
longitudinal axis such it would place an end of the ramping edge at . . . or
about . . . the longitudinal axis.” Id. The Examiner finds that Astrom
discloses “an endmill . . . having a convex ramping edge (X1, R1) with an
end disposed at (i.e., near) or about (i.e., near) the longitudinal axis (CL).”
Id. (citing Astrom, 3:50–53, Figs., 2, 3, 11). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to provide the cutting edge portion in a location
adjacent to the second end of the straight cutting edge, of the endmill
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

5
disclosed in Seong with a convex ramping edge” so as to “provide the tool
with the ability to perform a ramping operation, thereby increasing the
flexibility/usefulness of the tool.” Id. at 5–6. The Examiner alternatively
reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify the cutting edge portion
of the endmill in Seong to be a cutting insert as taught by Astrom in order to
improve replaceability of edge once dull and/or saving costs of production of
the endmill.” Id. at 11–12.
Appellant first contends that Astrom’s curved edges R1 or R2 are not
ramping edges. Appeal Br. 6. This contention is not persuasive because it is
contrary to Astrom’s explicit disclosure that “[a] separate ramping edge X1
or X2 is provided in connection to a curved edge R1 or R2.” Astrom, 3:50–
53.
Appellant next contends that Astrom’s ramping edges are not
disposed “at or about” the longitudinal cutting axis CL but “are plainly
spaced away from the longitudinal cutting axis CL.” Appeal Br. 6. As
noted above, the Examiner construed the phrase “at or about” as “near.”
Appellant does not persuasively explain why the Examiner’s construction is
erroneous nor does Appellant persuasively explain why being “spaced
away” from the longitudinal axis is not “at or about” the longitudinal axis as
interpreted by the Examiner. Therefore, we determine that this contention
does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellant next directs us to the Affidavit of Dr. X. Daniel Fang
submitted October 6, 2017 (“Fang Aff.”) and contends that forming the
recited convex ramping edge in an area adjacent to the longitudinal axis of
Seong’s endmill “would impose significant manufacturing difficulty during
the grinding step of forming the endmill.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

6
that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the convex
ramping edge is “more easily produced by the use of removable inserts” as
disclosed in Astrom. Id. Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that the additional “difficulty in producing the
curved ramping edge . . . would be so great as to discourage the person of
skill in the art from attempting it in the manner proposed by the Examiner.”
Id. According to Appellant, “the manufacturing considerations between
solid endmills and insert-bearing endmills diverge so greatly as to require
considerably different geometries to enable these methods of
manufacturing.” Id. at 6–7. This contention is not persuasive because claim
1 recites an “endmill” and is not limited to a solid endmill so this contention
is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. In addition, Appellant concedes
that the convex ramping edge is more easily produced by the use of
removable inserts like those disclosed in Astrom and does not persuasively
argue why the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to
modify “Seong to be a cutting insert as taught by Astrom in order to improve
replaceabilty of edge once dull” is erroneous. Final Act. 11–12.
Appellant next contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine Seong, which is directed to high speed operations, with Astrom
which is directed to high feed applications because “the primary principle of
operation . . . would be incompatible with, and thus, frustrated by, the
modification to include a convex ramping edge.” Appeal Br. 7. Claim 1 is
not limited to an endmill for use in high speed or high feed applications.
Thus, Appellant’s contention is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Further, its contention is undercut by Dr. Fang’s Affidavit, which states that
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

7
“Seong does not explicitly prohibit the use of a ramping edge.” Fang Aff. ¶
18.
We have considered all of Appellant’s contentions and determine that
Appellant fails to persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination of Seong and
Astrom, which we determine to be reasonable and supported by rational
underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
(“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
We thus, sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2,
3, 6–17, and 19–22 fall with claim 1.
Rejection of Claim 18 as Unpatentable over Seong, Astrom, and Van
Iperen
Claim 18 depends from claim 12. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
Appellant does not argue separately for the patentability of claim 18 other
than to state that “Van Iperen [does not] cure the deficiencies of Seong and
Astrom.” Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 for
the same reasons discussed above.
Rejection of Claims 1–3 and 6–22 as Unpatentable over Seong and
Magill
Appellant argues claims 1–3 and 6–22 as a group. See Appeal Br. 5–
7. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2, 3 and 6–22 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner makes substantially the same findings based on Seong
as for the rejection based on Seong and Astrom above but relies on Magill
for disclosing “a convex ramping cutting edge (165) at or about the
Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

8
longitudinal axis.” Final Act. 17 (citing Magill, Figs. 2, 5). Appellant
contends that “Magill clearly illustrates and describes a configuration in
which the ramping cutting edge is configured adjacent to a cavity, with the
cavity spacing the ramping cutting edge away from the . . . the longitudinal
cutting axis.” Appeal Br. 8. This contention is substantially similar to the
argument that Astrom’s ramping edge is not “at or about” the longitudinal
axis. See id. at 6. The contention is, thus, not persuasive for the same
reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 6–22 fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–22 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–3, 6–22
21, 22 112(d) Improper
Dependency
21, 22
1–3, 6–17,
19–22
103 Seong, Astrom 1–3, 6–17,
19–22

18 103 Seong, Astrom,
Van Iperen
18
1–3, 6–22 103 Seong, Magill 1–3, 6–22
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–22

Appeal 2019-002884
Application 14/660,977

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED