Appeal No. 2002-1035 Page 5
Application No. 09/333,166
one-half on up (see, e.g., Quantum Corp. V. Rodime PLC, 65 F.3d 1577, 1581, 36
USPQ2d 1162, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1995) cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1567 (1996)). The claimed
range includes ratios outside the scope of the single relationship disclosed in
appellants’ Figure 16 (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97
(CCPA 1976) and we find nothing in appellants’ original disclosure which contemplates
flute depths to anchor portion radius ratios outside of that illustrated and over the entire
range now claimed.
For the foregoing reason, the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is sustained.
The obviousness rejections
Each of appellants’ independent claims 1, 13 and 16 calls for a shank and a
working tip having a mounting portion having a radius and angularly spaced flutes each
having a maximum radial depth which is a substantial portion of the radius of the
mounting portion, the flutes being substantially filled with the material of the shank. In
rejecting claims 1 and 16 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and
claim 13 as being unpatentable over Kruesi in view of Rosenburg, the examiner
appears to concede that neither Rosenburg nor Kruesi discloses a working tip having
flutes having a maximum depth which is a substantial portion of the radius of the
mounting portion of the tip. The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 1 and 16 relies in part on a determination that the radially outwardly
extending blades or protrusions near the handle end of the blade 11 illustrated in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007