Appeal No. 2002-1265 Page 5
Application No. 09/558,575
does not have any helical cutting flutes extending longitudinally thereon. The
countersink cutter 44 shown in Figure 1 does not appear to us to be helical cutting
flutes.
Since the examiner's rationale for the anticipation rejection is not proper for the
reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 30, and claims 31
and 32 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REMAND
We remand this application to consider the following:
1. Is there written description support in the original disclosure as required by the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the limitation of claim 30 that each of said first and
second cutting portions are defined in part by at least two helical cutting flutes extending
longitudinally? This limitation was first presented in this application in the amendment
filed on December 19, 2000 (Paper No. 6).2 The examiner should consider whether or
not the original disclosure (e.g., Figures 9 and 10 and pages 8-9 of the specification)
provides the necessary written description support. If the examiner determines that
2 A slightly different limitation (i.e., each of said first and second cutting sections are defined in part
by at least two flutes spaced symmetrically thereabout, each of said flutes defining a cutting edge) was
present in claim 33 which was added to this application by the preliminary amendment filed April 26, 2000
(Paper No. 3). However, this preliminary amendment does not constitute part of the original disclosure of
this application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007