Appeal No. 2005-0901
Application No. 10/182,886
the line." Also, Reinhardt provides no teaching that the tip of
the helical member terminates on the constant amplitude without
extending into the cavity of the member.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that Reinhardt describes the
element of claim 1 within the meaning of § 102.
As for the § 103 rejection, Bracewell does not cure the
deficiencies of Reinhardt discussed above. In addition, we
concur with appellant that Bracewell does not evidence the
obviousness of modifying the tool of Reinhardt such that it has a
means for increasing the size of the bore created by the soil
penetrating portion of the tool (claim 12) or has portions having
a greater pitch or wavelength to create a spring effect. While
the auger drilling system of Bracewell has portions of different
pitch or wavelength to stabilize the bore wall by compressing the
tailings against the bore wall, we agree with appellant that the
examiner has not provided any satisfactory explanation how such a
compression would necessarily result in an increasing of the size
of the bore. Furthermore, as urged by appellant, the flights 4
of Bracewell are welded to the stem 6, and the examiner has not
set forth how such a modification would have been implemented in
the tool of Reinhardt. Also, as submitted by appellant "it would
appear that such springing or oscillating movement is totally
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007