Appeal No. 1998-2700
Application No. 08/722,452
unpatentable over Briskin in view of Garuglieri and Cox, we
share appellant’s view that the protractor of Cox for
measuring and reading the angular setting of aircraft
propeller blades with relation to their hub is far removed
from appellant’s field of endeavor involving a combination
chop and table saw and a system for indicating the angle of
the saw blade relative to the vertical. Moreover, even if one
skilled in the art would have viewed Cox as being reasonably
pertinent to the problem confronted by appellant (a point of
view which we find to be highly questionable), we must agree
with appellant that there is no teaching, suggestion or
incentive in the applied references which would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cox
with those of Briskin and Garuglieri in the manner urged by
the examiner. Unlike the examiner (answer, page 7), we do not
view the protractor of Cox and the angular adjustment
mechanism of Briskin (Figures 14, 15, 17 and 18) as being
"equivalent structures" which "perform equivalent functions in
substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same
result." Indeed, given the disparate nature of the devices
and functions performed thereby in Cox and Briskin, it is our
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007