Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
blade in solid lines in a first vertical position with the saw
blade teeth facing downwardly, and in phantom lines in a second
opposite vertical position with the saw blade teeth facing
upwardly. Ketchpel does not provide for adjustment of the path of
travel of the spindle.
The linchpin of the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is that (1) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the teachings of Ketchpel to support
the saw blade of Enders in a second orientation, wherein the saw
blade has a second cutting direction opposite the cutting
orientation shown in Figs. 5A-5D, and that (2) the resulting
modified Enders saw would include all the claimed cutting
directions, cutting strokes, return strokes, and paths of travel.
First, we do not agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious in view of Ketchpel to support the saw blade of Enders
in a second orientation wherein the saw blade has a cutting
direction opposite the cutting direction shown in Figs. 5A-5D.
Notwithstanding the teachings of Ketchpel, which arguably teach
that it is generally known in the art of hand held reciprocating
saws to reorient the saw blade to achieve a different cutting
direction, the issue is whether it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied reference
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007