Appeal No. 1999-2414
Application No. 08/942,732
of the use in Weissman. If the “working shaft” in Weissman is considered to be only the larger diameter
sections (16 and 29), then, in appellants’ view, those shaft sections have no stiffness/flexibility variation
along their length with that variation not due solely to a dimensional or cross-sectional shape variation,
as required by the instant claims.
We agree with the examiner that there is absolutely no teaching in Weissman that the “working
shaft,” comprised of various sections, of which at least one section is coated with diamond dust, should
be referred to as containing one working shaft and one non-working shaft as alleged by appellants.
Looking at Weissman’s Figure 3, it would appear to the artisan that there is a single “working
shaft”comprising alternating sections 29 and 30, with sections 29 of the single working shaft being
optionally coated with diamond dust.
We do not find persuasive appellants’ reference to column 3, line 67 through column 4, line 1 of
Weissman for the proposition that there are two distinct shafts in Weissman, with only one being a
“working shaft.” The referenced sections of the patent indicate that second, minor diameter shank
sections 30 do not include a lateral cutting surface which is present in sections 29. We interpret this, in
light of the drawings in Weissman, as meaning that the one shaft, or “working shaft,” includes two types
of sections, each section of a different diameter. While only certain sections of the shaft do the cutting,
both sections form part of the single working shaft.
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007