This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: October 2007 TC 3700 – Sample KSR Rejections Example 1 – Modular Metalworking Tooling Apparatus : The claim is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) over Engibarov (US 5,056,766) in view of Wharton (US 2,676, 413). Engibarov discloses a modular tooling apparatus (precision machine vise shown in Figure 1) for performing a metalworking operation on a workpiece (milling, grinding, drilling or tapping operation – column 1, lines 6-7) comprising: a base of a metalworking machine (machining table 10), the base comprising an attachment surface (upper surface 10a), and the attachment surface comprising a first locating feature (T-slot 12); an insert (jaw support 16) associated with and separately secured to the attachment surface, the insert comprising a second locating feature (square-cornered ridges 39 and clamping member 62), and a workpiece support feature on a surface thereof (wedge member 50), wherein the second locating feature on the insert is configured to associate with the first locating feature of the attachment surface to define a location of the workpiece support relative to the base (ridges 39 fit within and against the sides of the upper neck portion 12c of the T-slot 12 and the T-shaped cross-section of clamping member 62 conforms to the cross-section of T-slot 12). Engibarov fails to disclose or suggest that the base is configured for semi-permanent attachment to a table of a metalworking machine. Wharton discloses a tooling apparatus (jig shown in Figure 1) that holds and locates a workpiece for performing a metalworking operation (cutting or drilling a component). The tool holder includes a base (1) provided at each end with an extension (2) in which is formed a slot (3) adapted to receive a clamping means for Page 1 of 12 October 2007 securing the base on a machine base. Thus, the base of the tool holder is configured for semi-permanent attachment to the machine base. Under KSR rationale – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results : To provide the device of Engibarov with a base configured for semi-permanent attachment to a table of a metalworking machine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Wharton, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (clamping) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the semi-permanent attachment used in Wharton would allow the precision machine vise of Engibarov to be temporarily attached to the table of a metalworking machine and later removed therefrom, for example, for storage purposes....
View Full Document
- Spring '10
- Remote control, The Hook, Inventive step and non-obviousness, Consumer electronics, ordinary skill, DeMay