Appeal No. 2004-1168
Application 09/884,518
We find that the housing 11 of Hubscher’s adaptor 10 has a cylindrical cross
section as seen in Fig. 2 or 3. Therefore, Hubscher’s housing 11 is similar to the
housing 13 of Ferris (US Patent No. 3,274,889) cited in column 1, line 12 of Hubscher.
Consequently, Hubscher’s housing 11 has a flat surface 15 or 13 at its end in the same
manner as Ferris’s flat surface 16 or 17. Therefore, the limitation “a substantially flat
surface” in claim 1 is “read on” or “fully met” by Hubscher’s substantially flat surface 15
or 13.
Appellant further argues that Hubscher fails to teach the functional limitation “for
sliding across a wall surface” as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues that even if the
end 15 were flat, it could not be slid along a wall surface as the saw blade 65 and
associated coupling devices extending from the end 15 prevent the surface 15 from
being positioned proximate the surface to be probed. See page 5 of the brief.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 does not positively require the claimed
“accessory” is to be in contact with the wall. The Examiner further speculates that one
could place Hubscher’s surface 15 on the wall adjacent a corner where the blade 65
would pass around the corner of the wall to allow the surface 15 to slide along the wall.
See page 5 of the answer.
We find that Hubscher teaches in column 3, lines 46-52:
In the use of the electronics, when the housing 11 is placed
in adjacency with a wall surface and the switch 71 is closed,
when metal is sensed such as, for example, a metal
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007