Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
Johnson, Ambrosio and Langworthy? First, we find that persons
having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from either
the acknowledged prior art Figures 6 and 7 or Ito that the housing
for the motor driving the motor shaft of a conventional miter saw
with one common, linear motor-driving saw blade shaft likely would
deny saw blade cuts 45 degrees to either side of zero-tilt unless
the workpiece was turned around because the housing for the motor
would abut the top surface of the workpiece base. Second, persons
having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ito’s
10 solution to the recognized problem requires a special “bevel gear
39 having a chip angle of 45o and acting as a reduction gear is
fixedly mounted on the spindle 33 at a position within the gear
case 32” (Ito, col. 4, 31-33) and a “spur gear 42a . . .
integrally formed with the motor shaft 42 and . . . positioned
above the bevel gear 39 so as to engage the same” (Ito, col. 4,
l. 40-42). The inventors of appellant’s claimed invention and Ito
both appear to have recognized that, while positioning a motor
shaft of a motor in parallel with a saw blade (perpendicular to
the saw blade shaft) precluded obstruction caused by a motor
20 housing when a mitre saw unit is pivoted (Ito, col. 1, 17-31,
citing Japanese Laid-Open Utility Model Publication No. 63-49901;
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007