Appeal No. 1999-1912
Application No. 08/730,724
According to the examiner, Suzuki “substantially
discloses the claimed invention” (answer, page 3). We note,
however, that Suzuki is silent as the manner in which the saw
blades 14, 33 and 34 are connected to their respective drive
means, which is the crux of the claimed invention. Hence,
apart from setting forth the elements of the claimed machine
that appellant presumably concedes to be conventional or
known , Suzuki is of little relevance to the obviousness issue3
at hand. In any event, Suzuki discloses a machine for cutting
boards having a first station 1 where boards 5 are
successively cut into sections by saw blade 14, and a second
station 17 where the sections cut at the first station are cut
into a plurality of smaller sections by the saw blades 33, 34
of saws 30, 32.
Rudolf pertains to a device for clamping a disc-shaped
tool such as a grinding disc 11. Looking at Figure 1 of
the advisory action mailed August 4, 1998 (Paper No. 11).
3Note, for example, that independent claim 15 is drafted
in Jepson format. By operation of 37 CFR § 1.75(e)(1), the
preamble of claims so drafted constitutes “a description of
all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are
conventional or known.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007