Appeal No. 2000-2062
Application No. 08/108,698
already been referred to in the prior Board decision and in
the examiner's answer, and it is unnecessary to do so here.
The basis of the rejection, as stated on pages 4 and 5 of the
examiner's answer, is:
The essential difference between the claimed
method and [Lahtinen] is that in [Lahtinen] a wire
saw is used to cut the log, wherein a turning
mechanism is used to support the log, and a circular
portion is sawed form the center portion of the log
for use as a column or for stock material in a
veneer lathe. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of
common sense to (1) eliminate the step in [Lahtinen]
of sawing the central circular portion and its
function (i.e., providing an elongated member of
circular cross-section) if it were desired not to
have either columns or veneer stock and (2) to
extend the parallel cuts so as to completely divide
the log into only "wood products" (i.e., boards) and
triangular pieces. This is particularly the case,
in view of the teaching of the [Hainke] in Fig. 1 of
completely dividing a log by means of parallel cuts
into only boards and triangular pieces (wherein it
was obviously not desired to utilize the central
portion of the log for other purposes, e.g., columns
or veneer stock).
Further, the combination of [Lahtinen] in view
of [Hainke] lacks the step of dividing each
essentially diametrical and plane-parallel board
into two plane-parallel boards with two transverse
cuts while removing central juvenile wood
therebetween. However, it is common knowledge that
the grain structure in the juvenile central portion
of the log is not consistent with that of the rest
of the wood cut from the log, and it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
try to maintain wood portions with similar or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007