Appeal No. 2006-2406 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/745,113
With regard to Bennett, appellants assert (id.) that “Bennett
neither discloses nor suggests the desirability of support the
band saw in between use during constant operation.” It is argued
that there is no mention in either of the references of the
desirability to have a hook which enables suspension of a band
saw in between use. Appellants further argue (brief, page 5)
that the examiner has failed to show any nexus between the two
references to suggest the combination, and that there is no
suggestion or motivation in either of the references to combine
them together. Appellants lastly argue (id.) that “[o]nly
through the Examiner’s hindsight reconstruction, picking and
choosing isolated elements from the Bennett reference to combine
it with the Dean reference is the Examiner enabled to come up
with his rejection.”
The examiner responds (answer, page 4) that Bennett clearly
suggests the desirability of hanging the band saw when not in
use. From this teaching of Bennett, the examiner takes the
position (id.) that an artisan would have been motivated to
provide a hook as taught by Bennett on the device of Dean to
arrive at the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007