Appeal No. 2006-1243 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/955,690
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tanaka. The examiner's findings in regard to this rejection can be found
on pages 3 to 4 of the answer. In regard to the recitation in claim 1 of a movable
trimmer blade that reciprocates "in response to the reciprocation of the reciprocating
blade", the examiner states:
. . . The moveable trimmer blade 4 reciprocates in response to
reciprocation of the reciprocating blade 5, 7...[answer at page 3]
The blade 5 and the drive member 7 in combination create a reciprocating
blade 5, 7. Therefore, the blade 5 and its reciprocating member 7 work
together in order to create a reciprocating blade for the hair clipper.
[answer at page 5].
Appellants argue that the examiner's finding that the blade 5 and the drive
member 7 are the reciprocating blade is unreasonable because the drive member 7 is a
separate element that performs a function different than the function performed by the
shaver blade 5.
We agree with the examiner that the blade 5 and the drive member 7 form the
reciprocating blade. In this regard we emphasis that it is the drive member 7 connected
to the blade 5 which causes the reciprocating movement of the blade and as such we
do not find it unreasonable to find that the blade 5 together with the drive member 7
constitute the reciprocating blade.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007