Appeal No. 2006-2406 Παγε 12
Application No. 10/745,113
assertion (reply brief, page 2) that “[t]here is no motivation to
combine the two references because the two references do not
address the same problem.” Dean is directed to, inter alia,
providing an impact resistant cover to protect the saw components
from damage. Bennett provides a support hook which we find will
inherently help protect the saw from damage by keeping it
suspended when not in use. Because both references generally
address the problem of protecting the portable, motor driven band
saw, we are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion that the
references address different problems and that there is therefore
no motivation to combine the teaching of the two references as
advanced by the examiner.
From all of the above, we hold that the combined teachings
of Dean and Bennett would have suggested to an artisan the
invention of claim 1, and are not convinced of any error on the
part of the examiner. The rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5
which fal with claim 1, is sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007