Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
cutting machines appellant claims simply because their sizes and
specific applications differ. Aside from the want or kind of
respective supports, the motor/saw designs utilized by the cutting
machine appellant claims and those described by the cited prior
art all have a basic parallel motor shaft/blade shaft
configuration for straight, mitre, bevel and compound cutting.
Langworthy explicitly states:
I have utilized a well known or standard type of electric
motor 1 with its driving shaft 2 protruding therefrom, and
10 the saw 3 is of the disk type, of which various sizes may be
used to adapt it to different conditions.
(Langworthy, p. 1, l. 71-76);
The saw may be of various sizes, and the guard is also made
in various sizes complementary to the saw, and these elements
may be changed at will, to adapt them for different uses.
(Langworthy, p. 2, l. 49-53); and
The arm may readily be manipulated to attain cuts at various
20 angles and depths for cranial and other cuts, and the
laterally disposed saw affords an instrument which may be
manipulated with facility and accuracy in the operations.
(Langworthy, p. 2, l. 69-74).
Representative Claim 1 on appeal reads (AB 38, Claims
Appendix):
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007