Appeal No. 96-4022
Application 08/197,011
portion extending therefrom a lesser height than the first height
of said first plurality of cutters;
wherein said second cutter on said flank portion of said bit
body adjacent said bearing zone selectively engages portions of
said subterranean formations during said drilling reducing wear
of said bearing zone on said gage portion of said bit body
thereby extending the life of said drag bit and the tangential
forces generated on said bit body by at least one cutter of said
first plurality of cutters and said at least one second cutter
act in substantially the same radial plane of said bit body.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Warren et al. (Warren) 4,982,802 Jan. 8, 1991
Claims 2, 9, 10, 16-21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Warren.
Claims 3-7 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Warren.
We will not sustain either of the above-noted rejections.
For reasons stated infra in our new rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, no reasonably
definite meaning can be ascribed to certain language appearing in
the claims. In comparing the claimed subject matter with the
applied prior art, it is apparent to us that considerable specu-
lations and assumptions are necessary in order to determine what
in fact is being claimed. Since a rejection on prior art cannot
be based on speculations and assumptions (see In re Steele,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007