Ex Parte Alliss

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

12151064 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

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.
12/151,064 05/01/2008 George E. Alliss M2TOR004.20 8773
21919 7590 01/26/2015
MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC
673 S. WASHINGTON ST.
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
PAYER, HWEI-SIU C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte GEORGE E. ALLISS
________________

Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 22‒36. Br. 1. Claims 1‒21 have been cancelled. Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “is related to vegetation trimmers that
use flexible trimmer line in general.” Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 22 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064

2

22. A trimmer head device that rotates a segment of trimmer
line in a predetermined plane of rotation, said device
comprising:
a segment of trimmer line having a first end and an
opposite second end;
a housing having a top surface, a bottom surface, and a
peripheral edge, wherein an entrance port is disposed along said
peripheral edge in said predetermined plane of rotation and an
exit port is located on said top surface above said predetermined
plane of rotation;
a channel between said entrance port and said exit port,
wherein said channel begins at said entrance port in said
predetermined plane of rotation and bends to said exit port in
said top surface, and wherein said entrance port, said exit port
and said channel are sized to enable said segment of trimmer
line to pass therethrough, wherein said first end of said segment
of trimmer line is inserted into said entrance port, through said
channel, and out of said exit port, wherein a portion of said
segment of trimmer line proximate said first end extends freely
out of said exit port so that said portion can be manually
grasped for later extraction of said segment of trimmer line;
a guide slot within said housing proximate said channel;
and
a movable cleat within guide slot that is capable of
moving reciprocally within said guide slot, wherein said cleat
mechanically grips said segment of trimmer line within said
channel, to prevent said segment of trimmer line from moving
within said channel toward said entrance port without
preventing said segment of trimmer line from movement within
said channel toward said exit port.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Alliss US 2004/0237315 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Fogle ’956 US 6,944,956 B1 Sept. 20, 2005
Fogle ’324 US 7,000,324 B2 Feb. 21, 2006

Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064

3

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
Ans. 4.
Claims 22‒36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fogle ’324, Alliss, and Fogle ’956. Ans. 4.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 27 and 28 as indefinite
Claims 27 and 28 both depend from claim 22 and both claims also
include a reference to a said “section.”1 For each of claims 27 and 28, the
Examiner finds “insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this
claim.” Ans. 4. Appellant presents no argument to rebut this indefiniteness
rejection. See Brief generally. Parent claim 22 does not recite any such
“section,” but instead recites “a top surface” and “a bottom surface.” Br.,
Claims App. (emphasis added). We note that dependent claim 26 recites “a
top section” and “a bottom section,” but the two claims in question do not
depend from claim 26. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27
and 28 as being indefinite.
The rejection of claims 22‒36
as unpatentable over Fogle ’324, Alliss, and Fogle ’956
Appellant separately sets forth the relevant limitations of independent
claims 22 and 29 (Br. 8‒9), but otherwise argues the rejection of these two

1 Claim 27 recites “said top section” and claim 28 recites “said bottom
section.” Br. 14.
Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064

4

independent claims together (Br. 5‒11). Appellant does not present any
argument for the separate patentability of any dependent claim. We address
Appellant’s arguments directed to independent claims 22 and 29, with
dependent claims 23‒28 and 30‒36 standing or falling with their respective
parent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
In understanding the Examiner’s rejection, it is important to note the
reference the Examiner is relying on for disclosing the limitation in question.
For all the claims on appeal, the Examiner primarily relies on Fogle ’324,
but acknowledges that Fogle ’324 fails to teach (a) “a guide slot being
formed in the housing proximate the channel” and also (b) “a movable cleat
being within the guide slot that is capable of moving reciprocally within the
guide slot.” Ans. 5. Regarding both (a) and (b) supra, the Examiner relies
on Alliss, and particularly Figures 3 and 4 thereof, for teaching that “it is
known in trimmer heads to provide a guide slot (42) in the housing
proximate the channel (40), and [to] provide a movable cleat (52) within the
guide slot that is capable of moving reciprocally within the guide slot.” Ans.
6. In addition to the teachings of Alliss, the Examiner also references Fogle
’956, and particularly Figures 1‒15 thereof, for teaching that “it is known in
trimmer heads to further include gripping mechanisms (52 and others) in
passageways and located closer to the pivot axis than a periphery of the
head.” Ans. 6. The Examiner notes that Fogle ’956 further teaches a
construction that “allows for any diameter line to be used.”2 Ans. 6.

2 Fogle ’956 teaches that “lines of different diameters or different cross-
sectional shapes may be inserted into the passageway and securely retained
without any modification to the head.” Fogle ’956 6:6–10.

Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064

5

The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Fogle ’324 to incorporate Alliss’s slots, cleats, and biasing members based
on the teachings of Fogle ’956. Ans. 6. The Examiner indicates that
“[d]oing so would allow a user to use any diameter line instead of just three
thereby increasing the utility of the device by allowing the customer to use
any type or brand and size of trimmer line in a trimming operation.” 3 Ans.
6‒7.
Regarding Fogle ’324, Appellant contends that “there is nothing in the
guide channel that engages the trimmer line.” Br. 6. We agree with
Appellant’s understanding of Fogle ’324, but the Examiner does not rely on
Fogle ’324 for disclosing something in the guide channel; instead, the
Examiner relies on Alliss and Fogle ’956 for such teachings. Ans. 5, 6.
Appellant also contends that “[t]he ’956 Fogle patent makes no
disclosure of channels that turn from the periphery of the trimmer head to
the top surface of the trimmer head.” Br. 7. Again, Appellant’s
understanding of Fogle ’956 may be correct, but the Examiner relies on
Fogle ’324 for this teaching, not Fogle ’956. Ans. 5. Appellant also
contends that Fogle ’956 “makes no disclosure of the claimed cleats.” Br. 7.
Here, the Examiner relies on Alliss for specifically disclosing cleats, not
Fogle ’956. Ans. 6.
When addressing Alliss, Appellant acknowledges that Alliss
“discloses a trimmer head with internal cleats,” but contends that “there is no
disclosure of channels that extend from the side of the trimmer head housing

3 Fogle ’324 discloses three different holes 42, 44, and 46 that “are sized to
accommodate string trimmer lines of three different external diameter
ranges.” Fogle ’324 4:49–51.
Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064

6

to the top surface of the trimmer head housing.” Br. 7. The Examiner relies
on the teachings of Fogle ’324 for this, not Alliss. Ans. 5.
Appellant further understands that in view of both Alliss and Fogle
’956, “it is known that a trimmer line can be held in straight channels using
cleats,” but contends that “such prior art does not enable the piece of
trimmer line to protrude from the top surface of the trimmer head so that it
can be easily grasped and pulled out of the trimmer head when worn.” Br. 9.
However, the Examiner relies on Fogle ’324 for such teachings, not either
Alliss or Fogle ’956. Ans. 5 (referencing Fogle ’324 5:22‒27).
Appellant acknowledges that in Fogle ’324, “a piece of trimmer line
does extend out of the top of the trimmer head,” but contends that Fogle
’324 requires a user to “have pliers in order to remove the trimmer line when
worn.” Br. 9. Not only is this unsupported attorney argument, but Fogle
’324 specifically states that when replacement is required, it is a simple
matter of removing the exposed end from one of holes 42, 44, or 46 and
“then pulling it out of the guide opening 24.” Fogle ’324 5:22‒27.
Appellant does not indicate where the need for pliers arises.
In short, Appellant is not arguing the rejection as stated by the
Examiner but is, instead, arguing the art individually. Our reviewing court
has provided instruction that “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant also alleges the Examiner engages in “wrongful hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention” in that the Examiner relies on “a
Appeal 2012-010554
Application 12/151,064

7

piecemeal combination of numerous references.” Br. 10. However, we
are informed that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is
in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But
so long as the reconstruction takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made,
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure,
such a reconstruction is not improper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392
(CCPA 1971). Appellant does not indicate or otherwise specify what is
gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure other than to restate the limitation
in question, contending that “the prior art cited simply does not disclose” the
same. Br. 10. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s reasoning employs
wrongful hindsight reconstruction. We are likewise not persuaded that
Fogle ’324, which discloses a “fixed line top-loading trimmer head for string
trimmer machines” (Fogle ’324 Abstract) “teaches away” as Appellant
contends, nor are we persuaded that “[t]here is no motivation” to combine
the Fogle patents with Allis. See Ans. 6–7.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28 as being indefinite is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22‒36 as being unpatentable over
Fogle ’324, Alliss, and Fogle ’956 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

Klh