Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313,
315 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant would have us limit the field of endeavor to
smaller “desk-top” cutting machines and limit the problem with
which the applicants are concerned to difficulties encountered
making compound angular cuts using smaller “desk-top” cutting
machines. We find appellant’s view of the full scope of prior art
analogous to the claimed invention unreasonably restricted with
regard to the sizes and shapes of composites comprising a saw, a
10 saw motor, a transition means, a base for the workpiece, the situs
of the workpiece, the workpiece itself, and problems related to
their utility for compound angular cutting of a workpiece. In our
view, persons skilled in the art would have considered the problem
to which the claimed invention is directed with less regard for
the sizes and shapes of the particular saw, saw motor, transition
means, base for the workpiece, the location of the workpiece and
the workpiece itself. Rather, we find prior art to be analogous
to the full scope of the invention claimed when it reasonably
pertains to the problem more broadly defined by appellant’s own
20 specification, i.e., how to make compound angular cuts, including
left and right 45 degree angular cuts, on a workpiece without
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007