Appeal No. 2005-0901 Application No. 10/182,886 the line." Also, Reinhardt provides no teaching that the tip of the helical member terminates on the constant amplitude without extending into the cavity of the member. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Reinhardt describes the element of claim 1 within the meaning of § 102. As for the § 103 rejection, Bracewell does not cure the deficiencies of Reinhardt discussed above. In addition, we concur with appellant that Bracewell does not evidence the obviousness of modifying the tool of Reinhardt such that it has a means for increasing the size of the bore created by the soil penetrating portion of the tool (claim 12) or has portions having a greater pitch or wavelength to create a spring effect. While the auger drilling system of Bracewell has portions of different pitch or wavelength to stabilize the bore wall by compressing the tailings against the bore wall, we agree with appellant that the examiner has not provided any satisfactory explanation how such a compression would necessarily result in an increasing of the size of the bore. Furthermore, as urged by appellant, the flights 4 of Bracewell are welded to the stem 6, and the examiner has not set forth how such a modification would have been implemented in the tool of Reinhardt. Also, as submitted by appellant "it would appear that such springing or oscillating movement is totally -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007