Ex Parte Yehle

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2019

15190129 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/190,129 06/22/2016
23892 7590 03/26/2019
DAVIDS ALA VI
2852 WILLAMETTE ST
#402
EUGENE, OR 97405-8200
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig T. Yehle
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
YEHL03NP 5724
EXAMINER
NICONOVICH, ALEXANDER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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
(Applicant: BowTech, Inc.)
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190, 129 1
Technology Center 3700
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JAMES P. CALVE and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
4 unpatentable over LaBorde (US 5,307,787, issued May 3, 1994) and
5 Schaffer (US 5,697,355, issued Dec. 16, 1997) (Final Office Action, mailed
6 Sept. 5, 2017 ("Final Act."), at 2 ); and claims 18-21 under § 103 as being
7 unpatentable over LaBorde, Schaffer and Darlington (US 2010/0132682 Al,
8
The Appellant identifies BowTech, Inc., of Eugene, Oregon, the
Applicant under 37 C.F.R § l.46(a), as the real party in interest. (See
"Appeal Brief under 37 C.F.R 41.73," dated Feb. 3, 2018, at 2).
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 publ. June 3, 2010) (Final Act. 13). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 6(b).
3 We AFFIRM.
4
5 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
6 The appealed claims are directed to an adjustment mechanism for a
7 compound archery bow. (See Specification, dated June 22, 2016 ("Spec."),
8 para. 1 ). According to the primary reference, LaBorde:
9 Compound bows differ from long bows in that a block and tackle
10 mechanism is used to bend the bow: pulleys or wheels are
11 attached at the free ends of the limbs to obtain a mechanical
12 advantage in bending the bow. The limbs can be made
13 approximately three times as stiff as for a longbow.
14 Eccentrically mounted wheels enable one to use a much higher
15 maximum draw weight because they provide a substantial "let
16 off' or reduction in the holding force of a drawn bow. The
17 combination of stiffer limbs and greater draw weight applies
18 large forces to the components of a compound bow.
19 (LaBorde, col. 1, 11. 9--19).
20 According to the Specification:
21 Typically a compound archery bow 10 includes a substantially
22 rigid central riser 11, a pair of resilient bow limbs 12 extending
23 from corresponding end portions of the riser 11, corresponding
24 pulley members 100 rotatably mounted on the bow limbs 12, a
25 draw cable 30, and one (in a single- or hybrid-cam bow) or two
26 (in a dual-cam bow) power cables 35 .... The draw cable 30 is
27 engaged with draw cable grooves 102 of the pulley members 100
28 and are let out from the draw cable grooves 102 as the bow 10 is
29 drawn and the pulley member 100 rotates .... The second end of
30 the power cable 35 is coupled to the bow, usually to the other
31 limb 12, to the other pulley member 100 ... , or to an axle on
3 2 which the other pulley member 100 is mounted.
33 (Spec., paras 24 & 25; see also id., Figs. 1 & 2).
2
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 If left in a straight path from one pulley member to the other, the
2 power cable would interfere with movement of the arrow in the
3 shooting plane of the bow (i.e., a plane defined by movement of
4 the draw cable as the bow is drawn and then shot). A so-called
5 cable guard can be employed to deflect the power cable laterally
6 out of the shooting plane . . . . However, lateral deflection of a
7 power cable out of the shooting plane also causes the lines of
8 force applied by that power cable to be misaligned with respect
9 to the shooting plane. Such an arrangement can produce
10 undesirable lateral deflection or twisting of the pulley members
11 or the limbs, in tum leading potentially to shooting inaccuracy,
12 poor arrow flight, accelerated wear or damage, or other
13 problems.
14 (Spec., para. 4). The Appellant addresses this problem by using secondary
15 power cables 350 and a transverse coupling member 302 to adjustably
16 couple each power cable to an axle mounted on a corresponding bow limb.
17 (See Spec., paras. 46 & 47; see also id., Figs. 2 & 10-12).
18 Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal:
19 1. A compound archery bow comprising:
20 (a) a substantially rigid riser;
21 (b) a first resilient bow limb extending from a first end
22 portion of the riser;
23 ( c) a second resilient bow limb extending from a
24 second end portion of the riser;
25 ( d) a first pulley member mounted on and rotatable
26 relative to the first bow limb around a first transverse rotation
27 axis, wherein the first pulley member includes a first draw cable
28 groove and a power cable take-up mechanism;
29 ( e) a second pulley member mounted on and rotatable
30 relative to the second bow limb around a second transverse
31 rotation axis, wherein the second pulley member includes a
32 second draw cable groove;
3
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 (f) a draw cable engaged with the first and second draw
2 cable grooves and arranged to rotate the first and second pulley
3 members as the bow is drawn and the draw cable is let out from
4 the first and second draw cable grooves;
5 (g) a power cable (i) engaged to be taken up by the
6 power cable take-up mechanism of the first pulley member as the
7 bow is drawn and the first pulley member rotates and (ii) coupled
8 to the bow so as to cause deformation of one or both bow limbs
9 as the power cable is taken up; and
10 (h) a transverse coupling member and a pair of flexible,
11 transversely spaced-apart secondary power cables, wherein (i)
12 the transverse coupling member is connected to the bow by the
13 pair of transversely spaced-apart flexible secondary power
14 cables, (ii) the power cable is connected to the transverse
15 coupling member at any one of multiple cable positions along the
16 transverse coupling member between the pair of secondary
17 power cables, and (iii) the coupling member and the pair of
18 secondary power cables are arranged so as to couple the power
19 cable to the bow.
20
21 ISSUES
22 Claim 1 is representative, at least with respect to the rejection of
23 claims 1-17 and 22-26 over LaBorde and Schaffer. The Appellant argues
24 the rejection of claims 18-21 over LaBorde, Schaffer and Darlington solely
25 on the basis that the subject matter of independent claim 1, the ultimate
26 parent of claims 18-21, would not have been obvious from the teachings of
27 LaBorde and Schaffer; and Darlington fails to remedy the deficiency. (See
28 "Appeal Brief under 37 CPR 41.37," dated Feb. 3, 2018 ("Br."), at 2).
29 This appeal turns on one issue:
30 Would representative claim 1 have been obvious from the combined
31 teachings of LaBorde and Schaffer?
32
4
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
2 The record supports the following findings of fact ("FF") by a
3 preponderance of the evidence.
4 1. The Examiner correctly finds that LaBorde describes a
5 compound bow 10 satisfying elements (a}-(g) of claim 1. (See Final Act. 2
6 & 3). In particular:
7 In FIG. 1, compound bow 10 includes handle [ or riser] 11 having
8 limbs 12 and 13 attached thereto. Pulleys or wheels 14 and 15
9 are mounted on axles attached to the free ends of limbs 12 and
10 13, respectively. Lacing, comprising bowstring [ or draw cable]
11 17 and [power] cables 18 and 19 interconnect wheels 14 and 15.
12 Specifically, bowstring 17 has one end connected to cable 18 by
13 way of wheel 15 and the other end connected to cable 19 by
14 wheel 14. The free end of cable 18 is connected to limb 12 by
15 anchor 21. The free end of cable 19 is connected to limb 13 by
16 anchor 22.
17 (LaBorde, col. 3, 11. 23-33).
18 2. Figure 7 depicts an anchor for coupling a free end of a power
19 cable to a limb of the bow 10. As depicted in Figure 7, the anchor includes a
20 threaded shaft 93. A pair of rigid arms or links 31, 32 connect the shaft 93
21 to opposite sides of one of the limbs 12, 13. A threaded bore of an eyelet 91
22 fits over the shaft 93. A ferrule 96 couples a free end of a power cable 95 to
23 the shaft 93. (See LaBorde, col. 5, 11. 30-38).
24 3. LaBorde teaches that:
25 The substantial forces involved [ when the bowstring or draw
26 cable is drawn or loosed,] combined with the spacing of the
27 bowstring and [power] cables at the ends of the limbs cause
28 torques on the free ends of the limbs which twist the limbs. To
29 further complicate the matter, the torques vary as the bowstring
30 is drawn and released.
5
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 (LaBorde, col. 1, 1. 65 - col. 2, 1. 1 ). LaBorde addresses this problem by
2 permitting a user to rotate the shaft 9 3 relative to the arms 31, 3 2, thereby
3 causing the eyelet 91 to translate axially along the shaft. This movement
4 adjusts the anchor point of the power cable 95 so as to minimize overall
5 torque in the bow 10. (See LaBorde, col. 5, 11. 39-44; see also id., col. 3, 11.
6 62---68 & col. 4, 11. 54---68).
7 4. Schaffer describes a compound bow 10 including power cables
8 23, 24 having free ends coupled to axles 32, 32A mounted at free ends of
9 limbs 13, 14. (See Schaffer, col. 3, 11. 43-51; col. 4, 11. 6-8; & Figs. 1-3; see
10 also col. 4, 11. 53 & 54 & Fig. 9). As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, the free
11 end of the power cable 24 is affixed to a short cable 49 by means of a clamp
12 54. The free end of the power cable 24, as well as the short cable 49, extend
13 through a power cable adjuster 39 for attachment to caps 47, 52 mounted on
14 opposite ends of the axle 32. (Schaffer, col. 4, 11. 54---67).
15 5. Schaffer teaches that canting or twisting of the limbs is a known
16 problem in compound bows. (See Schaffer, col. 1, 11. 40 & 41 ).
17 6. Schaffer's power cable adjuster 39 include set screws 68, 69,
18 engaged with the free end of the power cable 24 and with the short cable 49,
19 respectively. One may use these set screws 68, 69 to independently adjust
20 the lengths of the free end of the power cable 24 and with the short cable 49.
21 By adjusting the lengths ofboth the free end of the power cable 24 and with
22 the short cable 49, one may adjust the timing of the cam assembly 19 (which
23 includes the pulley 34A mounting the opposite end of the power cable 24).
24 By adjusting only one of the free ends of the power cable 24 and with the
25 short cable 49, one may adjust the lateral position of the power cable 24 to
6
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 minimize canting or twisting of the bow 10. (See generally Schaffer, col. 5,
2 1. 17 - col. 6, 1. 4 ).
3
4 ANALYSIS
5 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute
6 a power cable adjuster 39 and a short cable 49, as taught by Schaffer, for the
7 anchor described by LaBorde, yielding a compound bow satisfying the
8 limitations of claim 1. (See Final Act. 4 & 5). The Appellant argues that the
9 proposed substitution either would have rendered LaBorde's bow, or at least
10 the coupling of the free ends of the power cables, inoperative; or changed
11 the principle on which the bow operated. (See "Appeal Brief under 37 CPR
12 41.37," dated Feb. 3, 2018, at 2). The argument is not persuasive.
13 First, the Appellant has not presented persuasive evidence that
14 LaBorde's bow would have been inoperative if Schaffer's power cable
15 adjuster 39 and short cable 49 were substituted for LaBorde's anchor; or that
16 the rigidity ofLaBorde's arms played any role in the bow's operation.
17 Second, Schaffer's power cable adjuster 39 and short cable 49 not only
18 provided the same functional advantage as LaBorde' s anchor, namely,
19 reducing torque or twisting in the bow (See FF 3, 5 & 6), but also provided
20 an additional advantage, namely, facilitating adjustment of the timing of the
21 cam assembly (see FF 6). Because Schaffer's power cable adjuster 39 and
22 short cable 49 provided the same functional advantage as LaBorde's anchor;
23 and because LaBorde did not teach any advantage attributable to the rigidity
24 of the arms, one of ordinary skill in the art likely would have recognized that
25 Schaffer's power cable adjuster 39 and short cable 49 could be simply
26 substituted for LaBorde's anchor without disrupting the operation of the
7
Appeal2018-005456
Application 15/190,129
1 bow. Furthermore, because Schaffer's power cable adjuster 39 and short
2 cable 49 provided an additional advantage not provided by LaBorde's
3 anchor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an affirmative reason
4 to implement the proposed substitution.
5
6 DECISION
7 Therefore, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-
8 26.
9 More specifically, we sustain the rejection claims 1-17 and 22-26
10 under § 103 as being unpatentable over LaBorde and Schaffer; and claims
11 18-21 under § 103 as being unpatentable over LaBorde, Schaffer and
12 Darlington.
13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
14 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
15 § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8