Appeal No. 2006-2406 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/745,113
persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that Dean does
not disclose a hook member having an engaging surface. To
overcome this deficiency of Dean, the examiner turns to Bennett
for a teaching of a hook member for the saw when not in use.
Appellants' position (brief, page 3) is that Dean discloses
pulley covers which are manufactured from a high impact polymeric
material, and that the covers protect the blade as well as the
pulleys from damage which may occur when the saw is dropped or
placed on the ground. It is argued (brief, pages 3 and 4) that
Dean does not disclose or suggest the need or desirability for
any type of hanging mechanism to support the saw off the ground
during non-use of the saw. Appellants assert (brief, page 4)
that
In fact, Dean discloses high impact covers which
absorbs force when the saw is dropped or is positioned
on the ground. Thus, Dean, by disclosing the high
impact covers, teaches away from supporting the saw off
the ground since the covers protect the saw when it is
positioned on the ground.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007