Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
his, and hinders our, analysis of the teachings and pertinence
thereof. Moreover, Bergler’s teachings appear to be cumulative at
best of all that the AAPA and Ito disclose. In short, the term
“desk-top cutting machine” has not been interpreted, the full
scope and content of the claimed subject matter has not been
determined, the knowledge and skill in the art has not been
discussed adequately, and the differences between all the prior
art cutting machines and the cutting machines appellant claims
have not been clearly identified. Nevertheless, at appellant’s
10 urging, we shall consider whether the applied prior art is
analogous, compare the claimed subject matter to the prior art
teachings, look at the pertinent prior art as a whole, and review
the rejections before us to the extent we are able to do so based
on the record before us.
We find that persons having ordinary skill in the art would
have considered both Langworthy and Ambrosio to be pertinent to
the subject matter claimed and thus analogous prior art. Both
patents teach motor-driven saws with parallel motor and blade
shafts which enable straight, mitre, bevel and compound cutting.
20 We are not convinced by appellant’s arguments that the motor/saw
designs these patents describe are nonanalogous to the desk-top
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007