Appellant wins in Ex parte Stout
At issue were method claims such as
A method for forming a sharpened cutting tool, the method comprising:
grinding a cutting tip to form an intermediate cutting tool, the cutting tip of the intermediate cutting tool comprising a planar face and a sharpened cutting edge at a distal end of the planar face, the cutting tip being relieved on a side and an end that cooperate with the planar face to define the sharpened cutting edge;
masking the intermediate cutting tool such that a first predetermined portion of the planar face is exposed and a second predetermined portion of the planar face is not exposed, the exposed portion of the planar face including the sharpened cutting edge and including at least portions of the end and the side that cooperate to define the cutting edge; and
depositing a wear-resistant material onto the exposed portion of the planar face of the intermediate cutting tool to form the sharpened tool.
The appellant overcame a written description rejection; Innova was cited by the PTAB panel, which included George Best:
However, “when an applicant uses different terms in a claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms to reflect a differentiation in the meaning of those terms.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004).