Appeal No. 1998-0046 Page 11
Application No. 08/357,320
would not be able to understand the metes and bounds of the
terminology "substantially parallel" in independent claim 1.
Claims 2 through 6, 9 and 10 depend from claim 1 and are
likewise indefinite.
Claims 1 through 6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the disclosure, as
originally filed, does not provide support for the invention
as is now claimed.
As discussed above and incorporated herein, the
appellant's original disclosure does not provide support for
the limitation that at least some of the cutting elements
comprise "cutting edges which extend substantially parallel to
said axis."
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 1
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 6 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. New grounds of rejection of claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007