Appeal No. 1998-1266 Page 10
Application No. 08/354,459
hole. There is no descriptive support in the original
specification, the original claims or the original drawings for
the recitation that the diameter of the cutting tool is “equal
to . . . a diameter of the formed hole.”
With further regard to the new ground of rejection of
claims 3 and 5 through 8, under § 112, first paragraph our next
difficulty with the claim language centers on the recitation in
claim 5 that the transverse opening has “at least one of a size
and geometry which is substantially different from a size and
geometry of the formed hole.” We interpret the grouping “at
least one of a size and geometry” (i.e., configuration) to mean
a size and/or geometry. Given this interpretation, claim 5 may
be viewed as reciting that the transverse opening has “a size .
. . which is substantially different from a size and geometry
of the formed hole” (emphasis added). There is no descriptive
support in the original specification, the original claims or
the original drawings for the recitation that a size of the
transverse opening is different from a geometry of the formed
hole, whatever that may mean.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007