Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281
Also, we find no error in the Examiner’s rationale that it is of no
moment whether the radius is provided on the moving or steady blade. It
would seem, absent evidence to the contrary, that “only the relative motion
between the two blades has any bearing on the quality of the cut” (Answer
13, penultimate para.). At any rate, for the reasons set forth above, it is
reasonable to conclude that the moving blade of Bennett inherently
possesses a radius.
Concerning the Li disclosure, Appellants have not refuted the
Examiner’s factual finding that the reference, at figure 10, demonstrates that
the quality of the cut improves with a larger blade radius (Answer 15,
second para.).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Kohama supports the blank
rather than the claimed scrap, we concur with the Examiner that “what one
calls the blank and what one calls the scrap is a matter of viewer
perspective” (Answer 15, last full sentence). Certainly, it has often been said
that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. In addition, we agree with
the Examiner that Appellants’ argument is not germane to the apparatus
claims on appeal.
Appellants also make the argument that “Madsen fails to insure
perpendicular movement as both the scrap and the support move in an
angular fashion relative to the upper surface” (principal Br. 11). However,
we agree with the Examiner that figure 2 of Madsen rebuts this argument.
Also, Madsen specifically discloses that “[w]hen the platen 10 is moved
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013