Ex Parte Donovan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 2012

10774335 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/774,335 02/06/2004 Robert Donovan DPEC-119 5268 22827 7590 11/14/2012 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT DONOVAN and DEWAYNE STANFORD ____________ Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to a band saw tensioning assembly. Claims 1, 12, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A tensioning mechanism, comprising: a tension spring assembly for applying a tensioning force; a cam assembly, the cam assembly applying a force to the tension spring assembly; a cover assembly adjustably coupled with the cam assembly, the cover assembly including a handle for enabling a user to selectively engage the cover assembly with the cam assembly in an index position, the handle having a first tensioning position and a second tensioning position for translating the user selected tensioning force to the tension spring assembly through the cam assembly; and an index indicator coupled with the cover assembly, the index indicator for indicating the index position for the cover assembly to enable the translation of the desired tensioning force, wherein the index indicator enables the quick selection by the user of the amount of tensioning force to be applied. Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 3 REJECTION Appellants seek review of the Examinerâ€™s rejection of claims 1-5, 11- 16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lee (US 6,557,447 B2, iss. May 6, 2003). Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Appellants allege that Leeâ€™s cam assembly (defined by the Examiner to include elements 30, 34, 35, 33 and 32) does not apply a force to the spring assembly (defined by the Examiner to include elements 70, 60/61, and 40); and that it is the force of gravity acting on the driven wheel 17, the slide seat 20, the first elastic member 50, and the seat block 40 that act to compress (i.e., apply a force to) the spring 70. App. Br. 11. Appellants also allege that Leeâ€™s cam assembly contacts only the cross rod 22 to move the cross rod and the aforementioned elements up or allow the force of gravity to move the cross rod and the aforementioned elements down. Id. Appellants further allege that it is unreasonable to assert that, by the eccentric wheel 30 applying a force to the cross rod 22, the eccentric wheel 30 is applying a force to the spring assembly. App. Br. 12. Appellants contend that when Leeâ€™s cam member rotates from the position in Figure 3 to the position in Figure 5, gravity forces the slide seat 20 downward and moves the stop plate 25 (connected to the slide seat 20) downward which in turn moves the elastic member 50 downward, which in turn moves the seat block 40 downward. Id. Appellants also contend that downward movement Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 4 of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50 applies a force to the spring 70 to compress the spring 70. App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellantsâ€™ allegation that downward movement of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50 applies a force to the spring 70 to compress the spring 70. The Examiner finds that claim 1 merely requires the cam assembly applying a force to the tension spring, and that Lee teaches a cam assembly coupled to a sliding tension bracket 20 including a stop plate 25 operationally coupled to a plunger 40 that is operationally coupled to a tension spring 70. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that whether the cam is in the position shown in Figure 3 or the position shown in Figure 5, the tension spring 70 applies a reaction force (i.e., a force against a compression force) to the slide seat 20 that is operationally coupled to the cam assembly. Id. The Examiner also explains that, because a reaction force is applied by the tension spring 70 to the slide seat 20, a force must be applied by the cam assembly to act against the reaction force of the tension spring 70 on the cam assembly. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that, although the slide seat 20 lowers by its own weight when the cam is in the position shown in Figure 5, there is a force on the tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity against the slide seat 20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly, and that there is consequently a force being exerted by the cam assembly against the tension spring assembly via the slide seat 20. Ans. 5. We disagree with the Examinerâ€™s findings that the tension spring 70 applies a reaction force to the slide seat 20, and that there is a force on the Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 5 tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity against the slide seat 20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly. We therefore disagree with the Examinerâ€™s finding that Leeâ€™s cam assembly applies a force to Leeâ€™s tension spring assembly. Leeâ€™s stop plate 25 and threaded hole 24 are fixed with respect to the slide seat 20. Lee, col. 2, ll. 22-23, 26-27. Therefore, the only structure of Lee that applies any force to the elastic member 70 is the microadjustment rod 60, which moves the support portion 62 (located between the stop plate 25 and the threaded hole 24) relative to the slide seat 20 to compress the elastic member 70 within the slide seat 20 or release pressure on the elastic member 70 within the slide seat 20. Lee, col. 3, ll. 29-34. The movement of the slide seat 20 upward and downward between the positions in Figure 3 and Figure 5 only causes the elastic member 70 (along with the other components 60, 61, 62 of the spring assembly) to rise and fall with the slide seat 20, and does not exert any compressive force on the elastic member 70. Thus, Leeâ€™s cam assembly does not apply a force to Leeâ€™s tension spring assembly. Because the Examinerâ€™s finding that Leeâ€™s cam assembly applies a force to Leeâ€™s tension spring assembly is in error, and this finding forms the basis of the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 26, and their respective dependent claims 2-5, 11, 13-16, 22, 25, 27-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lee, the rejection cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 6 DECISION We reverse the Examinerâ€™s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lee. REVERSED mls UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT DONOVAN and DEWAYNE STANFORD ____________ Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to a band saw tensioning assembly. Claims 1, 12, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A tensioning mechanism, comprising: a tension spring assembly for applying a tensioning force; a cam assembly, the cam assembly applying a force to the tension spring assembly; a cover assembly adjustably coupled with the cam assembly, the cover assembly including a handle for enabling a user to selectively engage the cover assembly with the cam assembly in an index position, the handle having a first tensioning position and a second tensioning position for translating the user selected tensioning force to the tension spring assembly through the cam assembly; and an index indicator coupled with the cover assembly, the index indicator for indicating the index position for the cover assembly to enable the translation of the desired tensioning force, wherein the index indicator enables the quick selection by the user of the amount of tensioning force to be applied. Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 3 REJECTION Appellants seek review of the Examinerâ€™s rejection of claims 1-5, 11- 16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lee (US 6,557,447 B2, iss. May 6, 2003). Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Appellants allege that Leeâ€™s cam assembly (defined by the Examiner to include elements 30, 34, 35, 33 and 32) does not apply a force to the spring assembly (defined by the Examiner to include elements 70, 60/61, and 40); and that it is the force of gravity acting on the driven wheel 17, the slide seat 20, the first elastic member 50, and the seat block 40 that act to compress (i.e., apply a force to) the spring 70. App. Br. 11. Appellants also allege that Leeâ€™s cam assembly contacts only the cross rod 22 to move the cross rod and the aforementioned elements up or allow the force of gravity to move the cross rod and the aforementioned elements down. Id. Appellants further allege that it is unreasonable to assert that, by the eccentric wheel 30 applying a force to the cross rod 22, the eccentric wheel 30 is applying a force to the spring assembly. App. Br. 12. Appellants contend that when Leeâ€™s cam member rotates from the position in Figure 3 to the position in Figure 5, gravity forces the slide seat 20 downward and moves the stop plate 25 (connected to the slide seat 20) downward which in turn moves the elastic member 50 downward, which in turn moves the seat block 40 downward. Id. Appellants also contend that downward movement Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 4 of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50 applies a force to the spring 70 to compress the spring 70. App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellantsâ€™ allegation that downward movement of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50 applies a force to the spring 70 to compress the spring 70. The Examiner finds that claim 1 merely requires the cam assembly applying a force to the tension spring, and that Lee teaches a cam assembly coupled to a sliding tension bracket 20 including a stop plate 25 operationally coupled to a plunger 40 that is operationally coupled to a tension spring 70. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that whether the cam is in the position shown in Figure 3 or the position shown in Figure 5, the tension spring 70 applies a reaction force (i.e., a force against a compression force) to the slide seat 20 that is operationally coupled to the cam assembly. Id. The Examiner also explains that, because a reaction force is applied by the tension spring 70 to the slide seat 20, a force must be applied by the cam assembly to act against the reaction force of the tension spring 70 on the cam assembly. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that, although the slide seat 20 lowers by its own weight when the cam is in the position shown in Figure 5, there is a force on the tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity against the slide seat 20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly, and that there is consequently a force being exerted by the cam assembly against the tension spring assembly via the slide seat 20. Ans. 5. We disagree with the Examinerâ€™s findings that the tension spring 70 applies a reaction force to the slide seat 20, and that there is a force on the Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 5 tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity against the slide seat 20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly. We therefore disagree with the Examinerâ€™s finding that Leeâ€™s cam assembly applies a force to Leeâ€™s tension spring assembly. Leeâ€™s stop plate 25 and threaded hole 24 are fixed with respect to the slide seat 20. Lee, col. 2, ll. 22-23, 26-27. Therefore, the only structure of Lee that applies any force to the elastic member 70 is the microadjustment rod 60, which moves the support portion 62 (located between the stop plate 25 and the threaded hole 24) relative to the slide seat 20 to compress the elastic member 70 within the slide seat 20 or release pressure on the elastic member 70 within the slide seat 20. Lee, col. 3, ll. 29-34. The movement of the slide seat 20 upward and downward between the positions in Figure 3 and Figure 5 only causes the elastic member 70 (along with the other components 60, 61, 62 of the spring assembly) to rise and fall with the slide seat 20, and does not exert any compressive force on the elastic member 70. Thus, Leeâ€™s cam assembly does not apply a force to Leeâ€™s tension spring assembly. Because the Examinerâ€™s finding that Leeâ€™s cam assembly applies a force to Leeâ€™s tension spring assembly is in error, and this finding forms the basis of the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 26, and their respective dependent claims 2-5, 11, 13-16, 22, 25, 27-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lee, the rejection cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Appeal 2010-010449 Application 10/774,335 6 DECISION We reverse the Examinerâ€™s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lee. REVERSED mls