Appeal No. 2002-1265 Page 4
Application No. 09/558,575
normally non-cutting. Thus, a cutter relief, in the form of a notch 28, is
incorporated in each of the flutes 23-26 at the end 16 of the rear portion 18 to
provide a start for the cutting edges and to reduce cutting loads on said flutes
(only the notch 28 on the flutes 23 and 26 is shown). Of course the flutes 23-26
on the forward portion 12 could be used to make a cylindrical enlargement of the
hole prior to tapering, but it is not common practice.
Arnold further teaches (column 3, lines 50-56) that
if the holes to be reamed also are to be countersunk (for example holes for flush
head fasteners) a countersink cutter can be incorporated by attaching a
cylindrical body 42 having a countersink cutter 44 at the second end 22 of the
rear portion 18. Thus reaming and countersinking can be accomplished in one
operation.
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner determined (answer, p. 4)
that the first and second cutting portions as recited in claim 30 were readable on1
Arnold's cylindrical body 42 and conical rear portion 18, respectively.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 3-4; reply brief, pp. 2-3) that the claimed first
cutting portion being defined in part by at least two helical cutting flutes extending
longitudinally is not met by Arnold's cylindrical body 42 having a countersink cutter 44.
We agree. In our view, as clearly shown in Figure 1 of Arnold, the cylindrical body 42
1 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007