Appeal No. 1998-1188 Page 11
Application No. 08/628,556
(final rejection, page 6). As to the limitation of claim 13
that the blade forms from two to four turns around the spike,
the examiner takes the position that the limitation is taught
by EP ‘675. In addition, the examiner asserts that the number
of turns recited in claim 13 and the three to six inch range
for the length of the spike recited in claim 17 are obvious
matters of design choice (final rejection, page 6 and answer,
page 8).
We do not agree with the examiner’s position that EP ‘675
teaches a blade forming from two to four turns around the
spike. Claim 13 calls for a range of two to four turns, i.e.,
at least two but no more than 4 turns. Such is clearly not
shown in EP ‘675. However, we do agree with the examiner that
the ranges recited in claims 13 and 17 are obvious matters of
design choice. We observe that Hall discloses a bit having a
single turn (see, e.g., Figure 1) and that EP ‘675 discloses a
bit having approximately ten turns. Also, the references show
that the pitch of the helical blade and the length of the
spike portion varies. Thus, it is known in the art to provide
a blade with as few as one and as many as 10 turns and to vary
the length of the spike, clearly establishing that the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007