Chandan, Baljit Singh. et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 201914273623 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019) 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. 14/273,623 05/09/2014 Baljit Singh Chandan 67514-011PUS1 3443 26096 7590 11/29/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER KELLER, BRIAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2019 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BALJIT SINGH CHANDAN and VIJAYA S. KANAKAMEDALA Appeal 2019-002082 Application 14/273,623 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant, NYX, Inc.,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 11–16, 18–22, and 24–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant is the “applicant” under 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(b) and identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002082 Application 14/273,623 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification’s “relates to a fixture for holding or retaining a workpiece.” Spec. ¶2. A rotary nest fixture according to an example of the present disclosure includes a fixture that has a pivot that defines an axis. The fixture includes a periphery circumscribing the axis. The periphery includes a plurality of work faces that are each oriented toward an exclusive radial direction with respect to the axis, and a plurality of nests. Each of the nests is removably mounted on one of the work faces. The fixture is rotatable about the axis such that the nests can be selectively moved between an active position and an inactive position. Id. ¶3. The Claims Claims 1–7, 9, 11–16, 18–22, and 24–27 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other claims are pending. Id. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below. 1. A rotary nest fixture comprising: a fixture including a pivot defining an axis, the fixture including a continuous periphery circumscribing the axis, the periphery including a plurality of work faces that are each oriented toward an exclusive radial direction with respect to the axis; and a plurality of nests, each of the nests being removably mounted on one of the work faces, the fixture being rotatable about the axis such that the nests can be selectively moved between an active position and an inactive position; wherein each of the nests has a different geometry than the other nests and the axis is horizontal. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-002082 Application 14/273,623 3 The Examiner’s Rejections The rejections before us, both of which are pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, are: 1. claims 1–3, 5–7, and 20 as unpatentable over Ewer2 and Gruber3 (Final Act. 3); and 2. claims 4, 9, 11–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24–27 as unpatentable over Ewer, Gruber, and Cotter4 (id. at 5). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–7, and 20 as unpatentable over Ewer and Gruber. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues the rejection of these claims together. Appeal Br. 5–6. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner found that Ewer discloses a rotary nest fixture, which Ewers refers to as a “tombstone fixture” (Ewer 1:37) and which includes all of the subject matter of claim 1 except for the axis of rotation being a horizontal axis. Final Act. 3 (citing Ewer 1:22–36, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner found that Gruber also discloses a rotary nest fixture, which Gruber refers to as “a work piece fixture” (Gruber 1:19) and which can be arranged either vertically or horizontally. Final Act. 3 (citing Gruber 3:58– 63, which states: “The multiple clamping arrangement, in dependence on the type of the multi-station operating machine or operating center, can be used in a vertical or horizontal operating position, that is, the longitudinal 2 US 5,454,148, issued Oct. 3, 1995 (“Ewer”). 3 US 6,185,802 B1, issued Feb. 13, 2001 (“Gruber”). 4 US 2014/0069164 Al, published Mar. 13, 2014 (“Cotter”). Appeal 2019-002082 Application 14/273,623 4 axis of the work piece carrier can be horizontal or vertical.”). In view of these teachings, the Examiner concluded: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ewer by configuring the rotary fixture and axis in a horizontal orientation, as dictated by the particular geometry of the machine or operating center being used in the process, as described by Gruber. One of ordinary skill would orient the rotary nest fixture either vertically or horizontally to better suit the machining operation, the particular parts being processed, and the tool arrangement. Id. at 4. Appellant argues that the skilled artisan would not have modified Ewers in view of Gruber to make Ewer’s axis horizontal for two reasons. Id. at 5. First, Appellant argues that such a modification “would have destroyed Ewer’s fixture for its intended use or changed its principle of operation” because it “would hinder loading and presenting from at least the side that faces down.” Id. This argument does not apprise us of error. Appellant’s argument is premised on Appellant’s unsupported characterization that the intended use and/or principle of operation of Ewer’s fixture is to “provide[] equal access to all of the work face” such that “[m]ultiple work pieces could thus be loaded and presented at the same time.” Id.; see also id. at 6 (“A skilled person starting from Ewer’s vertical orientation and instruction to reduce set up time would therefore not find any incentive in Gruber to give up the simultaneous access to all four of Ewer’s work faces.” (emphasis added)). As the Examiner points out, although Ewer may machine a workpiece while others are being unloaded and reloaded (Ewer 1:31–34), Ewer does not require simultaneous loading and/or Appeal 2019-002082 Application 14/273,623 5 machining at all four faces of its fixture. Final Act. 13; Ans. 15. Indeed, the very excerpt of Ewers that Appellant quotes does not evince Appellant’s characterization of the intended use and/or principle of operation of Ewer. That excerpt states: “Each tombstone fixture includes a number of work stations mounted on the columns or panels which allow multiple work pieces to be fixtured and presented for machining.” Ewer 1:37–39 (quoted at Appeal Br. 5). Although Ewer states that its fixture “allow[s] multiple work pieces to be fixture and presented for machining,” it does not state that it is intended to facilitate simultaneous and equal access to all work pieces. Further, even if Ewer had the intended purpose/principle of operation that Appellant ascribes to it, the Examiner points out that a skilled artisan could nonetheless modify Ewer in view of Gruber while maintaining that alleged intended purpose/principle of operation. Final Act. 14 (“Additionally, a horizontal rotary nest fixture could be configured by one of ordinary skill at a height where all faces were accessible for loading, including a downward-facing side.”). Appellant does not adequately rebut this point. See Appeal Br. 5–6. Second, Appellant argues that “Ewer teaches away from the modification proposed by the Examiner.” Id. at 5. This argument is premised on the same erroneous reasons discussed above—in short, that Ewer teaches simultaneous and equal access to all four sides and that such is unachievable with a horizontal axis. Id. Accordingly, it likewise does not apprise us of error. Further, even if Ewer taught away from a horizontal axis (which it does not), such a teaching would need to be weighed against all of the evidence including Gruber’s explicit teaching that a rotary nest fixture “can be horizontal or vertical.” Gruber 3:62–63; see Medichem S.A. v. Appeal 2019-002082 Application 14/273,623 6 Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Where the prior art contains ‘apparently conflicting’ teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered ‘for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill. . . . consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.’” (quoting In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Here, Appellant’s weak evidence that Ewer teaches away from using a horizontal access is far outweighed by Gruber’s explicit teaching to do just that. For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well as that of claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 20, which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejection 2 The Examiner rejected claims 4, 9, 11–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24–27 as unpatentable over Ewer, Gruber, and Cotter. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues against this rejection solely on the basis that Cotter does not cure the alleged deficiency in Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 6. As there is no such deficiency, Appellant does not apprise us of error in Rejection 2, which we accordingly affirm. SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7, 20 § 103 Ewer, Gruber 1–3, 5–7, 20 4, 9, 11–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24–27 § 103 Ewer, Gruber, Cotter 4, 9, 11–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24–27 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9, 11– 16, 18–22, 24–27 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation