Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
flipping it. We find that Ito, Johnson, Ambrosio, and Langworthy
all describe prior art cutting machines analogous to this broader
problem.
We need not consider whether the cutting machines described
by Bergler and Haffner are analogous to the invention appellant
claims. We find their teachings less pertinent to the claimed
invention than the teachings of Ito, Johnson, Ambrosio and
Langworthy. Moreover, we find the disclosure of acknowledged
prior art Figures 6 and 7 and Ito, combined with the teachings of
10 Johnson, Ambrosio and Langworthy, sufficient to support the
examiner’s rejection of the subject matter appellant claims for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 without application of, or
reference to, the cumulative teachings of Bergler and/or Haffner.
Discussion
The examiner urges, and Appellant does not deny, that
Figures 6 and 7 in appellant’s patent specification (acknowledged
Prior Art), and Figure 2 and the discussion thereof in Ito,
describe every aspect of the “desk-top cutting machine” defined by
appellant’s Claim 1 but for limitations (a) and/or (b) below:
20 (a) a motor shaft of said motor being disposed in parallel
with and above said saw shaft; and
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007