Appeal No. 96-4022
Application 08/197,011
than a broad reference to the numeral 40, there are no words
which describe the lower axial extent of the flank portion or
region.
Independent claims 9 and 16 additionally lack precision and
particularity in that lines 7 and 8 of each of these claims3
expressly sets forth that the plurality of cutters are located
on the flank portion but then, in contradiction, sets forth in
lines 13 and 14 that none of the first plurality of cutters are
located on the flank portion. Additionally, independent claims 9
and 16 on the one hand each sets forth in lines 3 and 4 that the
gage portion is located above the bit body but, on the other
hand, in line 5 makes reference to “said gage portion of said bit
body.” How can something that is located above the bit body be
considered to be a part of the bit body?
Moreover, independent claims 9, 16, 21 and 23 are inaccurate
in the technical sense since there is no disclosed structure
which would allow for either the (1) second cutter or cutters
(claims 9 and 21), (2) wear knot (claim 16) or (3) flank cutter
(claim 23) to “selectively” engage portions of the wall of the
3 The reference to specific lines in the claims in this
decision is with respect to the lines in the claims as they
appear in the appellants’ brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007