Appeal No. 96-3031
Application 08/098,062
claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137,
140 (CCPA 1978)).
Nance discloses a mine roof tool bit insert which the
appellants concede “possesses the features recited in the claims
on appeal except for the center notch” (main brief, page 4).
The admitted prior art roof bit insert is described on page
2 in the appellants’ specification as follows:
It has been conventional to provide a roof bit
insert 10' with a center notch N, as shown in FIG. 2A.
By replacing the chisel edge 16 with such a notch, the
penetration rate of the conventional roof bit is
increased. In that regard, a chisel edge does not
perform a cutting action as such, but rather serves to
grind or pulverize the center region of the hole being
drilled. That, however, is not an efficient or rapid
way to remove rock material. By providing a center
notch in lieu of a chisel, a center core of rock
material will be formed which can be more easily broken
into fragments, thereby improving the penetration rate.
According to the examiner,
applicants admitted in page 2, lines 13-24 that it is
conventional to provide a roof bit insert with a center
notch to improve the penetration rate. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to provide the insert of
Nance ‘387 with a center notch for the advantage
pointed out above [answer, page 3].
The appellants, on the other hand, take the position that
this combination of Nance and the admitted prior art would not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007