Appeal 2007-2769
Application 09/929,242
the side of the spinning blade of Friemann and a blade could be insulated
from the arbor and the table structure by an insulated hub or the like. In
short, Appellants are insisting on the bodily incorporation of Friemann into
the table saw of Hauer. However, bodily incorporation has never been the
standard of obviousness under § 103.
Additionally, Appellants argue a long felt need, but offer no formal
evidence that Appellants’ saw satisfies any long felt need or is any more
successful than the saw of the type of Hauer. In fact, Appellants argue that a
contact saw is inherently less safe that a proximity sensing saw. Appellants’
anecdotes do not rise to the level of evidence.
With respect to Terauchi, Appellants argue that this reference is from
a non-analogous art. The Supreme Court in KSR assigned it as error when
Courts and Examiners look only to the problem the applicant was trying to
solve. The Court stressed that the problem motivating an applicant may be
only one of many addressed by the subject matter. Familiar objects may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in this sense, the
teachings from the saw of Terauchi are clearly applicable to the saws of
Friemann and Hauer. See KSR at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Finally, Appellants argue that there is no motivation or suggestion for
combining Terauchi with Friemann and Hauer. We disagree. It is clear to
us that Terauchi provides express suggestion for using both a blade brake
and a blade retraction in a saw for safety purposes. Thus, one of ordinary
skill would have found it obvious to use both mechanisms in a safety device.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013