Appeal No. 2000-2180 Page 9
Application No. 08/919,866
as it may, consideration of Sasaki does not overcome the problem set forth above with the
combining of the three basic references, and therefore we will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 6. The same is true for claim 7, which adds to claim 5 the requirement
that the biasing means include a disk-shaped spring member, and which stands rejected
on the same basis as claim 6. It also applies to claims 38 and 39, which add to the claims
emanating from independent claim 35 the same spring limitations as claims 6 and 7.
Independent claim 31 also requires the roller bearing, and further includes the
spring member for biasing the two surfaces together. It is rejected on the basis of the
references applied against claim 1 plus Sasaki. Since Sasaki does not alleviate the
shortcomings found in combining Bennett, Barton and Bando, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 31 or of claims 32-34, which depend therefrom. We also
note in passing that Sasaki utilizes the disk-shaped spring member as part of a clamping
means for preventing one element from rotating with respect to another, rather than merely
as a means for biasing one element toward another.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and adds the requirement that the turntable work
support surface have an opening and the cutting tool include a snap-in kerf plate removably
connected to the turntable. The examiner has added Fushiya and Herzog to the three
references cited against claim 1 with regard to the kerf plate feature. However, the
additional references do not cure the problem with the basic combination applied against
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007