Appeal No. 2005-2503
Application No. 10/393,662
by virtue of the term "comprising," claim 36 is "open" to the use
of additional screws to attach the fence.
As for the examiner's § 103 rejection of the appealed claims
over Bergler, inasmuch as we find that Bergler describes the
claimed saw within the meaning of § 102, it logically follows
that we find the claimed saw unpatentable under § 103. It is
well settled that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Also, we are in total agreement with the examiner that it would
have been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in
the art to relocate the screws of Bergler in different locations
on the fence. Again, as stated by the examiner, since the
appealed "claims do not define a line of demarcation between the
fences and the central portion, . . . the central portion [of
Bergler] can be considered also to include portions of the fence
assembly that are in contact with the base between ends of the
fence assembly and the element 41 of Bergler (see attached
Figure)" (page 6 of Answer, second paragraph). We note that
appellants do not address this argument of the examiner in their
Reply Brief.
Also, we do not accept appellants' argument that if one end
of an element is attached to a base, and the other end of the
element can move relative to the point of attachment, the moving
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007