Appeal 2007-0266
Application 09/929,227
1 Claims 1, 19, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
2 over Yoneda in view of Friemann and Andreasson.
3 Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
4 Yoneda in view of Friemann and Andreasson and further in view of Baur and
5 Bielinski.
6 Claim 19 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
7 Yoneda in view of Friemann.
8 An obviousness double patenting rejection of claim 19 has apparently been
9 withdrawn by the Examiner as it is not mentioned in the Examiner’s Answer.
10 Appellants also rely on a Declaration by Dr. David A. Turcic. We have
11 carefully considered this evidence during our review of the rejections on appeal.
12 ISSUE
13 The sole issue for our consideration on appeal is whether the Examiner has
14 established the prima facie obviousness of claims 1, 3, 4, 19, and 31.
15 FINDINGS OF FACT
16 Yoneda discloses an emergency system for stopping a band blade on a band
17 saw. Yoneda discloses a support frame including arm 23 and base 24, a motor 10
18 supported by the frame, band saw blade 14 moveable by the motor and supported
19 by the frame via pulleys 11, 12, and 13, and a detection system, shown in Fig. 5,
20 connected to the blade by a bearing 16 made of conducting material. Yoneda
21 discloses two brakes for stopping the saw. The first is a clamp brake 20 mounted
22 on the frame, and the second is an electromagnetic brake B provided on pulley 11.
23 Yoneda does not disclose using stored energy to move the the brake components,
24 and Yoneda is silent with respect to how long it would take to stop the band saw
25 blade.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013