Appeal No. 2005-2503
Application No. 10/393,662
agreement with the examiner's reasoned analysis and application
of the prior art, as well as his cogent disposition of the
arguments raised by appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the
examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Appellants acknowledge that "Bergler discloses a saw with a
base, a rotatable table, a saw assembly connected to the table,
and a fence assembly comprising a first fence attached to the
base via a first screw and a second fence" (page 4 of principal
brief, penultimate paragraph). Appellants also do not dispute
the examiner's factual determination that the first and second
fences of Bergler are connected via a central portion. It is
appellants' contention that "such central portion is not shown or
disclosed to be attached to the base" (page 4 of principal brief,
last paragraph). In response to the examiner's statement that
"the claim does not require the point [of attachment] being
disposed at the central portion" (page 3 of Final rejection, last
paragraph), appellants maintain that "[s]uch interpretation
violates the plain meaning of the word 'attached' in the phrase
'the central portion being attached to the base'" (page 5 of
principal brief, last paragraph). Appellants argue that the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007