Appeal No. 1998-2700
Application No. 08/722,452
essence, we view the sleeve (52) as forming the body of the
pinion (54) which carries teeth that cooperate with the teeth
on rack (50), whereby movement of the pivot support (26)
relative to the pivot block (27) about the bevel axis (92), as
seen in Figures 2 and 3, causes the pinion (54) to advance
along the rack (50) and rotate the pinion (54) and sleeve (52)
relative to the fixing pin (44), the pivot support (26) and
the pivot block (27), thereby causing the pointer (56) on the
sleeve/pinion to rotate relative to the scale (58) and provide
an indication of the selected bevel angle of the saw blade.
In light of the foregoing, it is our opinion that claim
26 on appeal reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of
its scope and defines appellant’s invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity adequate to satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Thus, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 19,
21, 22, 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007