Appeal No. 2006-2406 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/745,113
appellants that Dean teaches away from having a support hook.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ assertion (id.) that there is
no mention in either reference of the desirability of having a
hook which suspends a band saw in between use because Bennett
discloses a portable, motor driven band saw that has a hook for
supporting the saw between use. Nor are we persuaded by
appellants’ assertion (brief, page 5) that there is no logical
nexus between the references to suggest the combination. From
Bennet’s disclosure of a portable, motor powered band saw that
has a support hook, we find the nexus to provide a support hook
on the portable, motor powered band saw of Dean. Nor are we
persuaded by appellants’ assertion (id.) that the examiner
ignores the teachings of Bennett as a whole and chooses a small
piece of Bennett to combine with Dean. Bennett is directed to a
portable, motor driven band saw. An object of the invention is
to provide the arrangement described and shown (page 1, lines 19-
22). Described by Bennett is the hook 20 for hanging the saw up
when not in use (page 1, lines 92-95). Thus, we find no
convincing evidence that the examiner is picking and choosing
isolated elements as part of a hindsight reconstruction of
appellants’ claims. Nor are we persuaded by appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007