Appeal No. 96-4022
Application 08/197,011
borehole or subterranean formations as these claims set forth
(claim 9 in lines 21 and 22; claim 16 in lines 21 and 22; claim
21 in lines 20 and 21; claim 23 in lines 22 and 23). In this
regard it should be noted that it does not follow that just
because one cutter protrudes a lesser distance from the profile
of the bit body than another, that there is a function or power
of making a selection or choice. It is further unclear how
tangential forces generated on the bit body by cutters and/or
wear knobs that are on opposite sides of (or at least spaced
apart along the curving outer profile 42 of) the bit body can
possibly be construed as acting in “the same radial plane” of the
bit body as set forth in the “wherein” clause of independent
claims 9, 16, 21 and 23 (a tangential force would appear to
inherently act perpendicularly to one of the infinite number of
radial planes extending through the bit body).
In independent claims 9 and 16 “in a plurality of radial
planes” should apparently be --along a plurality of radial
planes-- ( claim 9, line 9; claim 16, lines 9 and 16). In line
16 of independent claim 9 “of in substantially the same radial
plane” should apparently be --along the same radial plane--.
In independent claims 21 and 23 “in one or more radial planes”
should apparently be --along one or more radial planes-- (claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007