Appeal No. 2003-1254 Page 11
Application No. 09/284,793
c) a wedge piece (Strömberg's tightening ruler 9) having a wedge-shaped surface
(Strömberg's wedge surface 11) and an opposite surface;
d) a first spring (Strömberg's helical compression springs 16); and
e) a second spring (Strömberg's spring means 17).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 9-10) that the patent to Strömberg describes a
clamping device as defined in claim 6 except for the claimed second spring (i.e., "a
second spring acting on said clamping piece so as to press said clamping piece against
said wedge piece"). The appellants point out that their second spring 5 acts on the
clamping piece 2 so as to press the clamping piece 2 against the wedge piece 4 to
permit release of the saw blade 8 whereas Strömberg's spring means 17 acts on the
wedge piece (Strömberg's tightening ruler 9) so as to press the wedge piece
(Strömberg's tightening ruler 9) against the clamping piece (Strömberg's retaining ruler
7) to wedge up the knife blade 2. Thus, the claimed second spring and Strömberg's
spring means 17 act in essentially opposite directions to perform different functions.
In response to this argument, the examiner (answer, pp. 4-5) stated that the
second spring limitation (i.e., "a second spring acting on said clamping piece so as to
press said clamping piece against said wedge piece") does not specify the direction of
force of the second spring and therefore is readable on Strömberg's spring means 17
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007