Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
reversed, the position of the shoe structure 14 and motor housing
11 would make it hard for the operator to see the workpiece being
cut until after the cut was made, thereby making it, at best, very
difficult to achieve an accurate cut. In light of the above, we
consider that the modifications proposed by the examiner would make
Enders unsuitable for its intended purpose, such that it would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Enders in the manner proposed by the examiner. Ex parte Rosenfeld,
130 USPQ 113, 115 (Bd. App. 1961).
Second, even if the saw blade of Enders was supported to cut
in a direction opposite to that shown in the drawings, the claimed
subject matter would not result. As noted above, each of the
appealed claims, in one form or another, calls for adjusting the
path of travel of the end of the spindle such that the end has a
component of movement in the “cutting direction” of the saw blade
during the “cutting stroke” of the spindle.3 While we appreciate
that Enders provides for adjusting the path of travel of the
spindle, it is not apparent to us that the range of adjustments
3Consistent with appellant’s specification (page 3, lines
28-34) we understand the “cutting direction” to be the direction
in which the saw teeth face, and the “cutting stroke” to be the
direction of travel of the spindle (usually toward the saw
housing) during which the saw blade cuts the workpiece.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007