Appeal No. 96-4022
Application 08/197,011
21, lines 11 and 12; claim 23, lines 11 and 12). Similarly, in
independent claims 21 and 23 “in substantially the same one or
more radial planes” should apparently be -- along substantially
the same one or more radial planes-- (claim 21, line 16; claim
23, lines 15 and 16). We also observe that it is the centers of
the cutters that are located along a radial plane inasmuch as
some of the cutting faces of the cutters are angularly disposed
with respect to a radial plane (i.e., have an increased backrake
angle).
In dependent claims 10-15, “said at least one flank cutter”
lacks a clear antecedent basis since both the first plurality of
cutters and the “at least one second cutter” have been set forth
in parent claim 9 as being located on the flank portion. We also
observe that both the first and second cutters are referred to as
“flank cutters” in the specification (see, e.g., pages 5 and 6).
Claims 2-7, 9-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based upon an original disclosure which
fails to provide descriptive support for the subject matter now
being claimed. We initially observe that the description
requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
separate from the enablement requirement of that provision. See
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560-64, 19 USPQ2d
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007