Appeal 2007-2769
Application 09/929,242
product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Appellants also argue that Hauer teaches away from the claimed
combination and that the proximity system is in some measure safer than the
contact system. As noted above, we are in agreement with the Examiner that
these are art-recognized equivalents, and it would have been obvious to
substitute a contact system for a proximity system for the Examiner’s clearly
stated rationale of allowing closer work to the spinning blade. As noted
previously, one of ordinary skill in the saw art is fully aware of the trade-offs
associated with a proximity or a contact detection system. The choice of
which system to use in any given situation is merely applying known
techniques to known devices with predictable results. KSR at 1740, 82
USPQ2d 1396.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s argument of providing greater
flexibility to work is simply a wish for an enhanced product. On the other
hand, we see it as a design incentive or a market force compelling a
predictable variation on the part of one of ordinary skill. Id. at 1740, 82
USPQ2d at 1396. While we agree with the Appellants that the combination
provides a less safe saw, this is a mere trade-off when viewed with the
possibility of finer detailed work.
Appellants further argue that there is no reasonable expectation that a
combination of these references would be successful. We disagree. We
agree with the Examiner that the principles of insulation and grounding are
well known, and we note that the rollers 12 of Friemann contact the side of
the band, not the cutting edge. Rollers or take-offs could obviously contact
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013