Appeal No. 2000-2180 Page 8
Application No. 08/919,866
groove in the rotating element (see Figure 4). If such were not the case, lateral loads
placed upon the rotating element during normal operation of the saw would cause it to
move sideways, resulting in binding between it and the stationary element and thus
impeding rotation. This being the case, Barton really provides no suggestion in this
regard above and beyond that already evident in Bennett.
The teachings of Bennett, Barton and Bando therefore fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we will not
sustain the rejection to independent claim 1 or of dependent claims 5, 26, 27 and 30.
Independent claim 35 and dependent claims 36 and 37 also stand rejected on the
basis of Bennett, Barton and Bando. The requirement for a roller bearing also is present in
claim 35, albeit expressed in somewhat different terms, and therefore we will not sustain
the rejection of these claims for the same reasons as were expressed above with regard
to claim 1.
Claim 5 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the cutting tool further include means
for biasing the second bearing surface toward the first bearing surface, and claim 6 to
claim 5 that the biasing means include a spring member connected between the base and
the turntable. Claim 6 has been rejected as being unpatentable over the references
applied against claims 1 and 5 taken further in view of Sasaki, which was cited for
teaching using a spring to bias together a fixed element and a movable element. Be that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007