Ex Parte YehleDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201712581791 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Claims 8, 9, 11-16, and 18-22 are withdrawn.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 (D2Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation