Appeal No. 1999-2010
Application No. 08/684,635
that Smith shows “generating a computer aided design of the
bit body geometry . . . ; forming an automated layering
device for constructing a mold based on the computer aided
design . . . ”. At the same time, the examiner states, id,
that “[h]owever, Southland, teaches a preparation and a use of
molds . . . to provide an improved drilling and provide recess
for the cutting elements.” Appellant argues, brief at page 9
and 10, that
[C]olumn 4, lines 9-13 [of Smith state] that “a
drill bit may be fabricated directly from the
CAD-generated solid model without the necessi1y of
designing and fabricating molds and without the
delicate, artistic hand labor currently required by
bit details.” (Emphasis added.)
Applicant's process on the other hand expressly
throughout the description and claims relates to a
method for making molds in which rock drill bodies
are cast.
Appellant also argues, id at page 9, that “[t]he Southland
patent concerns the polycrystalline diamond cutting elements
themselves and is specifically concerned with how the cutting
elements are cooled. There is no description whatsoever about
how a rock bit body is made and nothing about the preparation
and use of molds.” The examiner, in the “Response to
Argument” section on page 9 of the answer, disagrees with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007