Appeal No. 2005-0901
Application No. 10/182,886
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
§ 102 over Reinhardt. Although Reinhardt, like appellant,
discloses a soil manipulating tool comprising a helical or spiral
member, we agree with appellant that the tool of Reinhardt fails
to comprise two of the features recited in claim 1. In order to
support a rejection under § 102, a reference must clearly
describe all the features of the claimed invention. In the
present case, we agree with appellant that Reinhardt does not
clearly describe a helical member having an inner surface
defining a substantially cylindrical cavity in which a plug of
soil can locate. The narrative of Reinhardt fails to describe
such a feature, and it is not clear from the figures of Reinhardt
that the windings of the tool are not extremely tight and define
no cavity at all. The examiner has not explained how the
diameter D2 of the tool's shaft necessarily requires a
cylindrical cavity of the type claimed.
We also concur with appellant that Figure 3 of Reinhardt,
relied upon by the examiner, fails to show the claimed tip of the
helical member which terminates on the constant amplitude without
extending into the cavity. As explained by appellant at page 2
of the Reply Brief, "when a straight line is drawn at the
constant amplitude [on Figure 3], the tip 20 is short of reaching
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007