Ex Parte Yehle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12581791 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
12/581,791 10/19/2009 Craig T. Yehle BOWT10NP 3302
23892 7590 02/01/2017
DAVID S AT AVT
EXAMINER
2852 WILLAMETTE ST KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE
#402
EUGENE, OR 97405-8200 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
dsalavi@northwestpatent.com
dsalavi@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG T. YEHLE
Appeal 2015-003776
Application 12/581,791
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-7. Appeal Br. 2-3. Claims 8, 9, 11-16, and 18-22 are
withdrawn. Id. Claims 2, 10, and 17 are cancelled. Id. at 7-11 (Claims
Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and designate the affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2015-003776
Application 12/581,791
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims compound bow 10 with flexible cable guard 40 that
displaces power cables 22 laterally so that cables 22 do not interfere with an
arrow in use. Spec. ^ 29. Because arrow shaft 52 is narrower than the width
of arrow fletch 54 (feathers, fins), cable guard 42 displaces cables 22 by a
greater lateral distance D1 when the arrow is first mounted on bowstring 20
to allow fletch 54 to clear cables 22, and by a lesser lateral distance D2 when
bowstring 20 is drawn and only narrow shaft 52 is next to cables 22. Lateral
displacements Dl, D2 are shown in top cross-section views of Appellant’s
Figures 2A and 2B, reproduced below.
2/4
22
J
\
\\
40
20
FIG. 2A FIG, 2B
Figure 2A shows lateral spacing Dl before bowstring 20 is drawn.
Figure 2B shows smaller lateral spacing D2 after bowstring 20 is drawn.
2
Appeal 2015-003776
Application 12/581,791
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below.
1. A compound archery bow comprising:
(a) a riser and first and second bow limbs attached to the
riser;
(b) first and second pulley members rotatably mounted
on the first and second bow limbs, respectively;
(c) a draw cable engaged with the first and second pulley
members;
(d) one or more additional cables coupled to the first and
second bow limbs; and
(e) a cable guard comprising (1) an elongated, elastically
deformable, non-articulated member attached to and
extending backward from the riser, and (2) a cable
retainer engaged with the elongated member and with
each additional cable,
(f) wherein the bow limbs, the draw cable, and the
additional cables are arranged so that pulling the draw
cable to draw the bow causes (1) the pulley members
to rotate and let out the draw cable, (2) each additional
cable to be taken up or let out by at least one of the
pulley members, and (3) the first and second bow
limbs to bend toward one another;
(g) wherein the cable guard is arranged with the bow at
brace to retain a central portion of each additional
cable displaced laterally from a shooting plane of the
bow by a first cable displacement distance D1, which
first cable displacement distance D1 is greater than or
about equal to a distance F that fetching of an arrow
nocked onto the draw cable extends transversely from
the shooting plane toward the one or more additional
cables;
(h) wherein the cable guard is arranged with the bow
drawn to bend toward the shooting plane and to retain
the central portion of at least one of the one or more
additional cables displaced laterally from the shooting
plane by a second cable displacement distance D2,
which second cable displacement distance D2 is
greater than or about equal to a distance S that a shaft
3
Appeal 2015-003776
Application 12/581,791
of the arrow nocked onto the draw cable extends
transversely from the shooting plane toward the one
or more additional cables; and
(i) wherein the distance F is larger than the second cable
displacement distance D2.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3,4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McPherson (US 2011/0073090 Al, pub. Mar. 31, 2011).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over McPherson and Walker (US 4,903,678, iss. Feb. 27, 1990).
Claims 1,3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,791,324, iss. Aug. 11, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness rejections over McPherson or Johnson
The Examiner found that McPherson teaches a compound bow, as
recited in claim 1, including cable guard 330 having a flexible elongated
member (body portion 331) and cable retainer (cable engaging portion 334).
Ans. 2. The Examiner also found that McPherson inherently discloses a
displacement distance of the cable guard and additional cables to allow the
shooting of an arrow but does not specify that this distance is greater than or
about the distance F (fletching of the arrow) prior to drawing the bow, or
greater than or about a distance S (the arrow shaft) at the draw position. Id.
at 2-3. The Examiner determined, however, that the claimed cable distances
Dl, D2 could be discovered as optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation where the general conditions of the claim are known in the
prior art and the claimed distances lack criticality. Id. at 3.
4
Appeal 2015-003776
Application 12/581,791
The Examiner made essentially the same findings to reject claims 1, 3,
and 5-7 as unpatentable over Johnson. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner found that
Johnson discloses an archery bow with a riser, pulleys, cable guard, and
additional cables, and a cable displacement is inherent to allow shooting of
an arrow where the claimed distances Dl, D2 would have been obvious for
the same reasons as in the rejection of the claims over McPherson. Id.
Appellant presents the same arguments for the rejection of claims 1,3,
4, 6, and 7 over McPherson and claims 1,3, and 5-7 over Johnson and only
for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3-6. We select claim 1 as representative of both
groups. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The dependent claims rejected under
each ground stand or fall with claim 1 as to those rejections. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant argues that McPherson and Johnson are silent with respect
to the distance between the shooting plane and cables retained by the cable
guard and neither reference discloses a cable guard that permits the retained
cables to be retained a distance that is transverse to the shooting plane by
less than the transverse extent of the fletching of the arrow when the bow is
drawn or in any other arrangement. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant also concedes
that McPherson and Johnson disclose an archery bow with a cable guard that
is flexible and bends inwardly toward a shooting plane as the bow is drawn
(id.; Reply Br. 1), but neither McPherson nor Johnson discloses the “general
conditions” of claim 1 because no specific distances between the retained
cables and shooting plane are disclosed and there is no teaching that the
retained cables ever approach so closely to the shooting plane, i.e., to a
distance smaller than the transverse extent of the arrow’s fletching (D2