Appeal No. 2000-2062
Application No. 08/108,698
saws 2, and also allows sawing in the circumferential
direction by wire saw 4. If the log of Lahtinen were first
divided into two blocks by extending the first set of parallel
cuts all the way through the log, as proposed in the
rejection, it could no longer be mounted on the axle for
rotation, and the above-noted advantages of Lahtinen's method
would be lost. We therefore do not consider that one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated by Hainke to modify
the Lahtinen process as indicated in the examiner's answer,
supra.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 will not be
sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claim 17 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007