Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
the guard is in the lower or active position. Consistent with
the appellant's specification, we can think of no
circumstances under which the artisan would construe such
structure to correspond to the claimed "proximity detector."
Indeed, the reference to Lieber (which the examiner has relied
on in the § 103 rejection) even teaches that the art
recognizes the difference between a "contact switch" and a
"proximity switch" (see column 4, line 23). Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 14, 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hewitt.
Considering now the rejection of claims 1-39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Delta instruction
manual in view of Hewitt and Lieber, the examiner considers
that it would have been obvious to provide the saw of the
Delta instruction manual with a safety device as taught by
Hewitt in order to prevent undue harm to an operator.
Additionally, the examiner is of the opinion that it would
have been obvious to provide the modified saw with a proximity
switch in lieu of the contact switch utilized Hewitt's safety
device in view of the teachings of Lieber. We do not support
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007