Ex Parte Aquino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2017

13644781 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 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.
710240-5696/S Y-41910 1869
EXAMINER
ALIE, GHASSEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/644,781 10/04/2012
59582 7590 07/19/2017
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
Luis Aquino
07/19/2017 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 LUIS AQUINO, JESUS ARENIVAR,
SAMUEL BARRON, JOSE DE LA CRUZ,
ARTHUR FONG and STEVE WARNEKE
Appeal 2016-003350
Application 13/644,781
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as the last-named
applicant, Federal-Mogul Powertrain, Inc.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3—8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dodge (US 2,438,156, issued March 23, 1948)
and Putzer (US 2,685,901, issued Aug. 10, 1954), alone or further in view of
either Burnside (US 7,108,716 B2, issued Sept. 19, 2006) or the Appellants’
Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). The AAPA is to be found in paragraph 2,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Appeal 2016-003350
Application 13/644,781
and in Figures 1A and IB, of the underlying application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
The claims on appeal are directed to methods and apparatuses for
widthwise cutting of textile tubes 12 containing polymeric yams. (See
Spec., paras. 2, 3 & 13; id. at Fig. 2). The Specification teaches advancing a
tube 12 along an axis 26 into position for cutting; and then cutting the tube
by advancing a heated blade 24 through the tube along a direction
perpendicular to the axis of the tube. (See Spec, paras. 3, 15 & 18; id. at Fig.
2). More specifically, the Specification teaches orienting the cutting edge 34
of the blade 24 obliquely with respect to the direction in which the blade
advances in order to increase the “cutting region,” that is, the portion of the
blade that contacts the tube during cutting. (See Spec., paras. 5, 15 & 18).
Orienting the cutting edge 34 of the blade 24 advanced through the tube 12
obliquely with respect to the direction in which the blade advances enables
the blade to remain sharp for an increased number of cutting cycles. (See
Spec., para. 18).
Method claim 1 and apparatus claim 11 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method of cutting a textile sleeve containing polymeric
yam, comprising:
moving the textile sleeve along a central longitudinal axis
into a position to be cut;
providing a heated cutting blade operably connected to an
actuator;
actuating the actuator to move the cutting blade conjointly
and solely along a straight linear axis; and
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appeal 2016-003350
Application 13/644,781
bringing a cutting region of the cutting blade into direct
cutting engagement with the textile sleeve, wherein the cutting
region brought into direct cutting engagement with the textile
sleeve is about 2 times greater in length than a diameter of the
textile sleeve.
Dodge describes a manually-operated system for fabricating pile
textile materials such as carpet or velvet material. The system fabricates the
pile material from cylindrical bundles of substantially axially-aligned,
thermoplastic fibers such as yams or threads enclosed in paper or cloth
wrappings. (See Dodge, col. 1,1. 39 — col. 2,1. 21). In particular, Dodge
describes operating the system by steps that include moving a fibrous bundle
10 along a central longitudinal axis into a position to be cut; moving a
heated cutting blade solely along a straight linear axis; and bringing the
cutting blade into direct cutting engagement with the textile sleeve (see
Dodge, col. 2,11. 43—53 & Fig. 1; see also id. at col. 3,11. 45—48). The
heated blade simultaneously cuts the fibrous bundle widthwise and fuses the
fibers along the cutting plane 25 to complete the pile material 24. (See
Dodge, col. 3,11. 1—5 & Fig. 3).
Putzer describes a manually-operated machine for serially slicing
hamburger buns. (Putzer, col. 1,11. 5—11 & 23—27). The machine S includes
a casing 10 having a centrally located walled opening 16 for receiving and
restraining a bun B. (See Putzer, col. 2,11. 44—50; col. 3,11. 1^4; & Figs. 1 &
5). A sliding carriage 77 mounts a cutting knife 2d. (See Putzer, col. 3,11.
19-25 & Fig. 5). The sliding carriage 77 also mounts a handle 34 for
actuating the carriage to move the cutting knife 26 solely along a straight
linear axis; and to bring the cutting blade 26 into direct cutting engagement
with the bun B. (See Putzer, col. 3,11. 19-25 & 49-65; see also id. at Figs. 1
& 4). The cutting knife 26 has a cutting edge oriented at an oblique angle to
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Appeal 2016-003350
Application 13/644,781
the straight linear axis along which the sliding carriage 11 moves the knife
into engagement with the bun B. (See Putzer, col. 3,11. 19-25 & Fig. 5).
Putzer does not appear to provide a reason why the cutting edge of the
cutting knife 26 is oriented at an oblique angle.2
Burnside describes a stent-graft 100 including a biodegradable stent
110 for providing temporary structural support for a graft 120. (See
Burnside, col. 6,11. 29—38 & Fig. 1). Both the stent 110 and the graft 120
are made from helically wound or woven polymeric fibers. (See Burnside,
col. 6,11. 47—58 & Fig. 1). Burnside teaches that the graft 110 and the stent
120 may be cut to a desired length during manufacture. (See, e.g., Burnside,
col. 8,11. 25-28).
The AAPA teaches cutting a textile polymeric tubular sleeve 1
widthwise using a heated cutting blade 4 having a cutting edge 6 oriented
perpendicularly to a straight linear path 7 along which the blade engages the
tubular sleeve. (See Spec. para. 2; & Figs. 1A & IB).
The Examiner finds that Dodge fails to teach “wherein the cutting
region brought into direct cutting engagement with the textile sleeve is about
2 times greater in length than a diameter of the textile sleeve.” In addition,
the Examiner finds that Putzer describes a cutting machine having an
obliquely-oriented blade; and that an obliquely-oriented blade substituted for
the cutting blade described by Dodge would present a cutting region greater
in length than a diameter of the textile sleeve to be cut. (See Final Act. 2).
2 The Appellants argue that “Putzer us[es] a sharp knife 26 that is
necessarily inclined to avoid crushing a relatively] soft bun while cutting.”
(App. Br. 6). There is no factual support for this argument in the teachings
of Putzer.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-003350
Application 13/644,781
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to provide
Dodge’s cutting apparatus with the mechanism to position and drive the
blade diagonally, as taught by Putzer[,] in order to facilitate the cutting
action of the blade and produce a clean cut.” (Final Act. 3).
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has not shown it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Dodge and Putzer, in
the fashion claimed. Although Dodge’s teachings that a cutting blade might
be used to cut its fibrous bundles is provocative, Dodge primarily teaches
cutting by means of heat so as to simultaneously heat and fuse the fibrous
material along the cutting plane. Putzer teaches shear cutting of hamburger
buns. Given these facts, the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have had reason to combine the teachings “in order to facilitate
. . . cutting action of the blade” is too general to be persuasive. Neither is the
Examiner’s more specific finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason to combine the teachings to “produce a clean cut”
persuasive. The Examiner has neither proven, nor provided sufficient reason
to take official notice, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that orienting the edge of Putzer’s cutting knife in the oblique
manner depicted in Putzer helped to procure a clean cut. Even were this the
case, however, the Examiner has not proven that the knowledge would have
been routinely transferrable to a thermal cutting and fusing system such as
that described by Dodge. (See App. Br. 6).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—8 and
10-13 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dodge and Putzer.
Burnside teaches cutting a stent/graft to length without describing means for
effecting the cut. The AAPA, though it describes widthwise cutting of a
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Appeal 2016-003350
Application 13/644,781
tubular sleeve, fails to describe such cutting using an obliquely-oriented
blade. Because Burnside and the AAPA fail to remedy the deficiencies in
the combined teachings of Dodge and Putzer as applied to independent
claims 1 and 11, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—8 and 10-13
under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dodge, Putzer and either
Burnside or the AAPA.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—8 and
10-13.
REVERSED
6