Appeal No. 96-2817
Application 08/082,549
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case,
appellant has argued convincingly in their brief and reply brief
that the drill reamer bit of Jodock does not include a plurality
of cutting edges "defined by the intersection of said curved
sections with said end surface of said cutting end" as set forth
in claim 1, and by similar language in independent claims 10
and 18 which refer to a radiused wall section, so as to provide
curved arcuate cutting edges as required in appellant's
invention. We agree.
Looking to Jodock, it is clear to us, as it was to
appellant, that the cutting edges (6, 7) pointed to by the
examiner are straight cutting edges and are clearly not defined
by the intersection of a curved wall section or radiused wall
section of a flute with the end surface of the cutting end of
the drill. As for the unnumbered curved edges seen in Figure 3
at the base of facets (F), we share appellant's view (brief,
pages 17-18) that given the necessary direction of rotation of
the drill bit in Jodock and the positioning of these unnumbered
edges, it is clear that they do not constitute cutting edges as
required in the claims on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007