Appeal No. 2000-2062
Application No. 08/108,698
somewhat consistent grain structure by cutting the
central portion out of each board section so that
each portion will have similar characteristics
including strength, resistance to its environment
(e.g., environmental effects such as warpage), and
aesthetic appearance. It is noted that the specific
angles (i.e., 60 and 120 degrees) set forth as being
formed on the edge surfaces of the plane-parallel
boards would be inherent results of performing the
process taught by the prior art.
OPINION
Although the rationale stated by the examiner in the
first paragraph of the foregoing quotation is essentially the
same as that expressed by the Board panel in the prior
decision as the basis of the first new rejection under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b), we conclude, after reviewing the arguments
presented by appellant and by the examiner in the present
appeal, that claim 17 is not unpatentable over the applied
prior art. While we appreciate the position of the prior
Board panel and the examiner, we find ourselves in agreement
with the argument made in appellant's brief (page 9 et seq.)
that elimination of wire saw cutting in a circular path would
destroy the gist of the Lahtinen invention. Lahtinen mounts
the log 1 on an axle 7, which allows the log to be rotated to
positions where the six sets of parallel cuts 3 can be made by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007