Appeal No. 2006-1915
Application No. 10/056,312
enough room for the backlash eliminator and the motor to be adjacent one another,
and therefore the motor, belt and pulley system are utilized.” Id.
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s position that it would have
been obvious to provide a backlash eliminator 16 on the Ushiwata saw shaft 9.
Moreover, the examiner’s position appears reasonable on its face. Specifically,
Tsune’s teaching of the need for backlash elimination on circular saws to protect
both the workpiece and the saw would have suggested to a skilled artisan that
backlash elimination would be advantageous on the circular desk-top saw of
Ushiwata. We therefore adopt the examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to provide a backlash eliminator on the Ushiwata saw shaft 9.
The appellants do argue that Tsune’s backlash eliminator does not include
the pulley 9 or a belt. Consequently, according to the appellants, “[b]ecause pulley
9 and belt do not assist in the backlash eliminating function, a person skilled in the
art [would not install] a pulley and/or belt to provide a backlash eliminating
function pursuant to Tsune” (brief, pp. 5-6). Therefore, the issue before us is
whether it would have been obvious to provide Ushiwata with a transmission belt
between the motor 11 and second gear (motor shaft 12) to drive the second gear to
accommodate, or make room for, the backlash eliminator.
The appellants’ reference to US Pat. No. 5,823,081 (Tsune ‘081) on page 6
of the appeal brief is a bit of a red herring. First, as aptly pointed out by the
examiner (answer, pp. 4-5), Tsune ‘081 is silent as to how the gear 74 is driven.
Moreover, even assuming that Tsune ‘081 establishes or even suggests that a
transmission element, such as a gear, other than a belt, could be used to displace
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013