Ex parte JUNGMANN et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1998-1642                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 08/541,894                                                  

          the examiner’s rejection as it is directed to claim 24 and                  
          claims 25 through 28, 30, and 32 dependent therefrom.  We will              
          also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 35 as this               
          claim also recites that the blade is held under tension.                    
               The examiner entered a new rejection of all claims in the              
          Examiner’s Answer.  The appellants have not argued the                      
          patentability of independent claim 33 and claims 34, 37 and 39              
          dependant therefrom in the Reply Brief.  The appellants’                    
          arguments are directed to the Dillon reference, rather than                 
          Hoffman on which this rejection is based.  Therefore, we are                
          constrained to affirm the rejection as it is directed to                    
          claims 33, 34, 37 and 39.                                                   
               Appellants argue that Hoffman does not disclose that the               
          saw blade is pulled tight against the first member.  The                    

          specification does not include a definition for “pull.”                     
          However,  Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary,                 
          The Riverside University Publishing Company (1984) defines the              
          verb “to pull” as “to apply force to so as to cause or tend to              
          cause motion toward the source of the force.”  Hoffman                      
          discloses and depicts in Figures 8a and 8b that the balls 218,              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007