Appeal No. 96-3031
Application 08/098,062
which stand or fall therewith.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
As a final matter, it is noted that the term “said chisel
cutting edge portion” in independent claim 8 lacks a proper
antecedent basis and that claim 8 and dependent claim 13
apparently utilize inconsistent terminology, i.e. “second cutting
edge segment” (claim 8) and “innermost cutting edge segment”
(claim 13), to refer to the same cutting edge segment. It is
also noted that the recitation of both a notch and a chisel edge
or chisel edge portion in appealed claim 8 and in allowed claims
18 and 24 appears to be inconsistent with the indication in the
underlying specification that these two features are mutually
exclusive. These areas of concern should be appropriately
addressed upon return of the application to the examining group.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007