Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
arranged a deflecting plate at one side of a circular saw which had such a
device properly arranged on the other side).
1. Is claim 10 unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Slipp
in view of Son?
Claim 10 specifically recites the "disk holding means" of independent
claim 9 to comprise "an upstanding boss member that is raised from said
upper face of said tray, and a plurality of disk-receiving slots defined in said
boss member."
Dependent claims are nonobvious under § 103 if the independent
claim on which they depend is non-obvious. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1576 n.36, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1604 n.36 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Such is the case here on the present record.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to
establish that claim 10 is obvious over Slipp in view of Son. We decline to
evaluate the obviousness of claims 9 and 10 over the disclosures of Slipp
and/or Son in the first instance. However, in view of the recent holding in
KSR Int'l, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Examiner may wish
to develop the record as to whether the subject matter of claims 9 and 10
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan over the disclosures of Slipp
and/or Son.
2. Is claim 11 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Slipp in view of
Folini?
Independent claims 2 and 11 have been reproduced above and differ
by a single limitation. Specifically, claim 2 requires the pegs to be mounted
to the tray so that no standing water may collect at a point where the peg is
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013