Ex Parte Molins

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2013

10433630 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOSE GURRI MOLINS ____________ Appeal 2011-002739 Application 10/433,630 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002739 Application 10/433,630 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jose Gurri Molins (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rainer (DE 35 24 443 A1, publ. Jan. 15, 1987). Claims 12-28 have been withdrawn. 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “a portable motor-driven scissor.” Spec. 1, ll. 3-4 and fig. 1. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. Portable motor-driven scissor comprising a support (5) associated to a power takeoff (42) from a motor (43), a cutting mouth (44) comprising two jaws (3a, 3b), at least one of which is a working cutting jaw (3a) rotatably mounted on the said support (5) and connected to the output of the said power takeoff (42) by means of a gear drive (47) to carry out a closing-opening motion with respect to the other jaw (3b), the said support (5) includes or has fastened a handle (48) to which are associated means for controlling (49, 50) the scissor, characterized in that the said working cutting jaw (3a), which is at least one, is fastened to a power drive part (6a) which may rotate about an axis (7) mounted on a support (5), the said power drive part (6a) includes a lever arm (8a) at the end of which is arranged a sector of crown wheel (9a) which interlocks with a pinion (10) joined to a pinion spin axis (11) of the said power takeoff (42) constituting the said gear drive (47), where the said spin axis (7) of the power drive 1 Claims 2-11 are objected to by the Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and otherwise indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Final Rejection, mailed August 7, 2006, at 3. Claims 2-11 are not part of the instant appeal. Appeal 2011-002739 Application 10/433,630 3 part (6a) forms a predetermined angle with respect to the said pinion spin axis (11). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, “a sector of crown wheel (9a) which interlocks with a pinion (10)” and “spin axis (7) of the power drive part (6a) forms a predetermined angle with respect to the said pinion spin axis (11).” App. Br., Claims App’x. The Examiner found that axis 46 of Rainer forms a predetermined angle with pinion spin axis 16 (Ans. 3) and that pinion 18 interlocks with lever arm 44 having a crown wheel (Ans. 4). Appellant first argues that “the spin axis of Rainer’s power drive part 43 does not form a predetermined angle with respect to Rainer’s pinion spin axis 26, but rather is parallel thereto.” App. Br. 3. Although we agree with Appellant that the spin axis of Rainer’s power drive part 43 is parallel to pinion spin axis 26, we note that the Examiner has consistently identified pinion spin axis 16 as the claimed “pinion spin axis.” Ans. 3; see also Final Rejection, mailed August 7, 2006, at 2. It is clear from Figures 2 and 3 of Rainer that the spin axis of power drive part 43 forms a predetermined angle with respect to pinion spin axis 16 of pinion 18, as required by independent claim 1. We further note that because the Examiner has consistently interpreted Rainer’s pinion spin axis 16 and part 43 as the claimed “pinion spin axis” and “power drive part,” respectively, Appellant was placed on Appeal 2011-002739 Application 10/433,630 4 notice of the Examiner’s interpretation of the teachings of Rainer. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011).2 Hence, we do not agree, “that the Appellant cannot be expected to form a meaningful response.” See Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant further argues that “Rainer et al.’s alleged ‘pinion’ 16 and crown wheel section 44 are not ‘interlocked’ as required by claim 1” because of intervening “gear train (27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42) and two clutch mechanisms (52, 39).” App. Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because we agree with the Examiner that, “the term interlock doesn’t mean [that] the crown wheel and the pinion are required to be directly connected or meshed to each other.” Ans. 4. Appellant’s Specification does not expressly define the term “interlock” or otherwise indicate that it is used in a manner other than its ordinary and customary meaning. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “interlock” is “to become locked together or interconnected.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th Ed. 1997). In Rainer, pinion 16 is interconnected to crown wheel section 44 of drive part 43 by way of numerous transmission gears. Although we appreciate Appellant’s position that pinion 16 of Rainer is not directly interconnected to crown wheel section 44, we note that claim 1 is not so limiting. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the game is the claim.” It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re 2 “ …all that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132.” Appeal 2011-002739 Application 10/433,630 5 Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Moreover, as noted above, we could not find any portion in the Specification and Appellant has not pointed to any portion that would compel such a narrow reading of claim 1. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rainer. SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 1 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls