Ex Parte Dal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2013

11995540 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SYLVAIN DAL and JEAN-CLAUDE WEBER ____________ Appeal 2011-008286 Application 11/995,540 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008286 Application 11/995,540 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 50-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber (US 4,801,075, iss. Jan. 31, 1989) and Invernizzi1 (FR 2 362 765, pub. Mar. 24, 1978). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 50, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below and is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 50. A method for cutting strips from at least one film with an installation comprising means for feeding film and a cutting device, the cutting device comprising at least two blades which have cutting edges which are intended to face each other, the method comprising: feeding the film; and moving the blades relative to each other in a direction which is orthogonal relative to the film in order to propagate a cut in the film along the cutting edges, while simultaneously moving, substantially parallel with the film, at least a portion of at least a first of said blades relative to a second of the blades in order to press the cutting edge of the first blade against the cutting edge of the second blade. 1 We derive our understanding of this reference from the English language translation prepared by FLS, Inc., dated February 2011. Appeal 2011-008286 Application 11/995,540 3 OPINION The Appellants contend that Weber and Invernizzi do not disclose “. . . while simultaneously moving, substantially parallel with the film, at least a portion of at least a first of said blades relative to a second of the blades in order to press the cutting edge of the first blade against the cutting edge of the second blade,” as recited in claim 50 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner acknowledges that Weber’s cutting blade only moves downward. Ans. 6. Indeed, Weber discloses that “blade 48 moves downwardly” and blade 47 is a fixed blade. Weber, col. 4, ll. 64, 65; fig. 7. Accordingly, Weber lacks disclosure concerning the “simultaneously moving step, substantially parallel with the film,” since Weber’s blades 47, 48 lack movement parallel to sheet material 43. The Examiner also finds that “at least a first of the blades [(blade 48)] is at least partially mobile relative to a second of the blades [(blade 47)] substantially parallel with the film in order to press the cutting edge of the first blade transversely against the cutting edge of the second blade, see for example (Fig. 7).” Ans. 3. This finding is incorrect as to Weber’s disclosure of a substantially parallel mobility. Additionally, Weber’s disclosure concerning the use of the apparatus for cutting does not adequately support the Examiner’s finding that the cutting edge of blade 48 presses into cutting edge of blade 47. See Weber, col. 4, l. 56 – col. 5, l. 2; App. Br. 11-13. To remedy this deficiency with regard to claim 50, the Examiner turns to the disclosure of Invernizzi. According to the Examiner, Invernizzi “clearly shows movement of cutting blades substantially parallel with the web in order to cut the web, see for example Figs. 4 and 5; via cutting blades Appeal 2011-008286 Application 11/995,540 4 1 and 8 and the pivot points 3 and 4” and “it is obvious that by pivoting the cutting blade along the pivot points the blades will ‘substantially’ move ‘parallel with the film’.” Ans. 6. The Appellants point out that blade 1 moves simultaneously downward and “from its front end towards its rear end.” App. Br. 14. The Appellants contend that Invernizzi does not disclose that the cutting edge of the first blade presses against the cutting edge of the second blade because “the movement of first blade 1 causes the cutting edges of blade 1 and blade 8 [to] mov[e] away from each other.” Id. The Appellants’ contention is persuasive for two reasons: first, the Examiner does not explicitly find that the cutting edge of blade 1 presses against cutting edge of blade 8; and second, the totality of the Examiner’s findings do not include adequate evidence and/or technical reasoning to support a finding that the cutting edge of blade 1 presses against cutting edge of blade 8. See Invernizzi, pp. 4-5; Reply Br. 4. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection lacks rational underpinning as there is inadequate support for the conclusion that the combined teachings of Weber and Invernizzi would result in the limitation of claim 50 that the cutting edge of the first blade presses against the cutting edge of the second blade. Thus, the rejection of claim 50, and its dependent claims, is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 50-54. REVERSED Klh