Appeal 2007-0266
Application 09/929,227
1 Friemann discloses another band saw for use in cutting fabric. Friemann has
2 a frame 10, 11, and a saw blade 5 that rotates on the frame via four pulleys 6, 7, 8,
3 and 9. A motor M is provided to rotate the saw blade. Contact rollers 12 are
4 provided for sensing a change in the capacitance in the saw blade that indicates the
5 proximity of the operator. The operator’s touch unbalances a bridge circuit and
6 ensures a rapid braking of the motor M and the saw blade. At various locations in
7 the disclosure Friemann says that the blade can be stopped in 5 milliseconds or 10
8 milliseconds.
9 Andreasson discloses a chain saw provided with an electromechanical chain
10 brake. The chain brake is energized by an electromagnetic with a current from a
11 capacitor. The capacitor is charged by the magnetic ignition system of the chain
12 saw motor whenever the chain saw motor is operating at an RPM higher than a
13 threshold value.
14 Baur and Bielinski have been cited to show actuators that are severable
15 when provided with high electrical currents.
16 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
17 “Enablement requires that ‘the prior art reference must teach one of ordinary
18 skill in the art to make or carry out the claimed invention without undue
19 experimentation.’” Elan Pharms., Inc. v. Mayo Found., 346 F.3d 1051, 1054, 68
20 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (remanding the case to the district court for a
21 determination of whether the prior art reference enabled persons of ordinary skill
22 to make the invention without undue experimentation)(citing Minnesota Mining
23 and Manufacturing Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301, 64 USPQ2d 1270,
24 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2002) and Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362,
25 1369, 52 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(“Whether undue experimentation
26 would have been required to make and use an invention, and thus whether a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013