Appeal No. 2003-1476 Page 3
Application No. 09/291,983
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 29 and 31) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection.
David, the jumping off point of the examiner’s obviousness rejection, discloses a
saw having a frame 22 having a handle portion 24 and spaced shank or leg members
25 and 26 between which a blade 28 is stretched. As best illustrated in Figure 1,
David’s frame is of I-beam construction as called for in claim 1 but lacks an “arcuate
portion extending substantially the entire length between said forward end portion and
the maximum height portion” as also called for in claim 1.
Wells discloses a handsaw having a blade c attached at one end to a curved
tubular reach b and at the other end to a handle a. The reach is attached to the handle.
According to Wells (lines 25-40),
[i]t is of the essence of this improvement that this reach
should be both curved and tubular, and preferably it should
be constructed of wrought-iron piping. It contains a
maximum of strength for the purpose in hand with a
minimum of weight, and at the same time the curved
characteristic and the tubular characteristic combined give
the reach just that degree of elasticity which, along with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007