Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
the workpiece. To solve the problem, each of Johnson, Ambrosio
and Langworthy describes a compound angle disk cutting apparatus
comprising “a circular saw assembly having a motor covered by a
housing” wherein the “motor shaft of said motor [is] disposed in
parallel with and above the circular saw shaft” as required for
the cutting machine of appellant’s Claim 1. See Johnson’s
Figure 1, the composite of cutting member 19, motor 41, and drive
train 43 with “+450 capability of the cutting member positioning
mechanism 17” (Johnson, col. 5, l. 14-15; col. 7, l. 11-12);
10 Ambrosio’s Figure 1, the composite of blade 10, blade shaft 31,
motor means 11, motor shaft 32, and pulleys 29 and 30 relating to
saws “for varying the angular position of the saw blade relative
to the work” (Ambrosio, col. 1, l. 8-11); and Langworthy’s
Figure 1, the composite of disk-type saw 3, motor 1, and driving
shaft 2 for “many different styles of incisions or cuts, with the
instrument at various angles” (Langworthy, p. 1, l. 26-28).
We find that each of Ito, Johnson, Ambrosio and Langworthy is
analogous prior art to appellant’s claimed invention because each:
(1) comes from the same field of endeavor, and/or (2) reasonably
20 pertains to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007