Karthik Sampath et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2019

13152389 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2019)

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.
13/152,389 06/03/2011 Karthik Sampath K-3046USUS1 6784
27877 7590 08/26/2019
KENNAMETAL INC.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. BOX 231
1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY
LATROBE, PA 15650
EXAMINER
GATES, ERIC ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2019 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
KARTHIK SAMPATH and
ARMIN JOSEF ZIMMERMANN1
__________

Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
This is an Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, and 14–22. App. Br. 1. Claims 2, 7, and

1 “The real party in this appeal is the Assignee, Kennametal, Inc.” App. Br.
3. We refer to the appealing party as “Appellant.”
2 Appellant states, “[t]here are no known related cases for the purposes of
this appeal.” App. Br. 3. However, this same application number (i.e.,
Application No. 13/152,389) was the subject of Appeal No. 2015-007029
mailed April 4, 2017. The analysis in that earlier appeal has no impact on
the claims, arguments, or rejections now presented for review.
Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389

2
11–13 have been canceled. App. Br. 8–9 (Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, and 14–22 as being
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to rotary cutting tools
and, more particularly, to cutting tools, such as drills, having cutting tips
coated with a secondary material, such as polycrystalline-diamond (PCD).”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A cutting tool for performing hole-cutting operations on
a workpiece when the cutting tool is rotated about a central
longitudinal axis, the cutting tool comprising:
a generally cylindrical body having a first end structured
to engage the workpiece and an opposite second end structured
to be mounted to a machine tool;
a groove formed in the first end of the generally
cylindrical body, the groove disposed generally transverse to
the longitudinal axis; and
a nib portion disposed in, and joined to, the groove via a
brazing process, the nib portion comprising cutting edges
extending radially from the central longitudinal axis to form a
pointed cutting tip of the cutting tool;
wherein the generally cylindrical body comprises a
number of flutes and a number of coolant passages formed
therein, the flutes comprising a wall and axial edge extending
along the central longitudinal axis and having a segment of the
wall and axial edge formed by a base portion of the nib;
each coolant passage of the number of coolant passages:
extending from a first opening formed in the first
end of the generally cylindrical body adjacent the groove to a
second opening formed in the second end of the generally
cylindrical body; and
Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389

3
being disposed generally parallel alongside a
corresponding flute of the number of flutes.
REFERENCES
Davancens et al. US 2008/0193234 A1 Aug. 14, 2008
Cho US 7,585,342 B2 Sept. 8, 2009
Kim et al. US 7,997,836 B2 Aug. 16, 2011
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 14–22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Davancens and Kim.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Davancens, Kim, and Cho.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 14–22
as unpatentable over Davancens and Kim
Appellant argues claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 14–22 together. See App. Br.
5–7. We select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims
(i.e., claims 3–6, 8, and 14–22) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner relies on Davancens for disclosing
“nib portion 50” (among other limitations), and specifically, “nib portion
comprising cutting edges 16.” Final Act. 3 (referencing Davancens Fig. 3).
The Examiner states that Davancens’ “cutting edges extend to a radial
outermost portion” and “form a pointed cutting tip” as recited. Final Act. 3;
see also Davancens Figs. 1A, 3. The Examiner relies on Kim for disclosing
further limitations directed to helical flutes and coolant passages
therethrough. See Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389

4
Appellant contends, “Davancens does not employ a nib portion
comprising a cutting point or tip” because “[t]he cutting edges of Davancens
are, by definition, spaced a radial distance from the central longitudinal
axis.” App. Br. 5. Hence, “it is not possible for [Davancens’] cutting edges
to form a pointed cutting tip of the tool. The absence of a cutting tip is
evident in FIG.[] 3 of Davancens.” App. Br. 5.
The Examiner explains that Davancens’ “cutting edges define a
cutting tip or cutting point at the conjunction of the axial and radial portions
of cutting edge 16, as seen in figures 1A and 3.” Ans. 10.
Appellant replies stating, “[i]n order to form a pointed tip from cutting
edges, the cutting edges are required to intersect one another.” Reply Br. 2.
However, Appellant does not explain how the axially and radially extending
portions of Davancens’ cutting edges 16 (see Davancens Fig. 1A) do not
intersect at a corner.
Appellant also argues, “the point of intersection necessarily resides at
the longitudinal axis. This is evidenced in FIG. 3 of the present
application.” Reply Br. 2. However, as the Examiner points out, “the
claims do not require that the cutting tip or cutting point be located at the
central longitudinal axis.” Ans. 9–10.
Appellant further argues, “the pointed cutting tip in claim 1 is formed
from radially extending cutting edges. No axial[ly] extending cutting edge
is part of the claimed pointed cutting tip.” Reply Br. 3. First, claim 1
employs the open-ended term “comprising” and as such, claim 1 does not
preclude the use of axially extending cutting edges. More importantly,
however, the Examiner explains that Davancens discloses “two radial
cutting edges,” each extending from an outermost edge “all the way to the
Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389

5
central axis of the drill, as seen in figures 1A and 2B.” Ans. 9. Indeed,
Davancens identifies “radial distance 18” of opposing cutting edges 16 that,
together, extend across a diameter of the cutting tool. Davancens ¶ 44; see
also Davancens Figs. 1A and 4; Ans. 9 (“radial distance 18 [] is used to
define the spacing of cutting edge 16 from the central axis”). Hence, the
Examiner states, “the cutting edges 16 can be seen to form the cutting point
or cutting tip extending from the central longitudinal axis as set forth” in
claim 1. Ans. 9. Appellant is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant also contends that locating the tip as “argued by the
Examiner in FIG. 1A is entirely inconsistent with the specification and the
skilled artisan's interpretation of a cutting tip of a rotary tool.” Reply Br. 3.
This is because “[a]s is known to the skill[ed] artisan, the pointed cutting tip
is the initial contact point between the rotary tool and workpiece.” Reply Br.
3–4. Whether or not the pointed cutting tip is the initial contact point as
asserted is not a claimed feature. Further, Appellant is not persuasive that
the referenced cutting tip of Davancens’ rotary tool would fail to likewise be
an initial contact point.
Additionally, Appellant contends, “Davancens cannot be modified by
the teachings of Kim to produce the presently claimed rotary cutting tool.”
App. Br. 6. This is because such a modification of Davancens “tool would
negate radial distancing of the cutting edges, thereby changing the principle
by which Davancens was designed to operate.” App. Br. 6.
To be clear, the Examiner acknowledges that “Davancens et al. does
not disclose that the second opening is formed in the second end of the
generally cylindrical body” (Final Act. 3) because while Davancens teaches
“one or more holes 38” at a first end, Davancens does not disclose that such
Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389

6
holes extend fully along the tool to the recited second end. Kim does. See
Kim Fig. 5. The Examiner also acknowledges that Davancens does not
disclose “each coolant passage . . . being disposed generally parallel
alongside a corresponding flute.” Final Act. 3. Again, the Examiner relies
on Kim for such teaching. See Final Act. 4. In view of the above limited
reliance on Kim, Appellant does not explain how such modification
regarding flutes with passages therein “would negate radial distancing of the
cutting edges” as argued.
Appellant also contends that “Kim alone cannot render the pending
claims obvious under § 103(a).” App. Br. 7. However, the Examiner did
not rely on “Kim alone” for this rejection. See Final Act. 2–5.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–6, 8, and 14–22 as being obvious
over Davancens and Kim. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10
as unpatentable over Davancens, Kim, and Cho
Appellant contends, “the combination of Davancens and Kim fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Moreover, Cho fails to cure the
deficiencies of Davancens and Kim.” App. Br. 7. Appellant’s contention is
not persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 and 10 as being unpatentable over Davancens, Kim, and Cho.

Appeal 2019-000466
Application 13/152,389

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, and 14–22 as being
obvious are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED