Ex Parte Baum

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2015

12329336 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 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.
12/329,336 12/05/2008 Ted Baum JR. 315.301 8604
28785 7590 09/24/2015
JOHN R LEY, LLC
P.O. Box 4504
Englewood, CO 80155
EXAMINER
EKIERT, TERESA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2015 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 TED BAUM, JR.
____________

Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ted Baum, Jr. (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19, 20, and 25‒31.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to an “apparatus for making metal
simulated log siding panels having hew line-simulating bends.” Spec. 1, ll.

1 Claims 1‒18 are canceled, claims 21‒24 are objected to, and claims 32‒43
are allowed. Advisory Action, dated July 23, 2012, p. 1.
Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336

2
6‒7. Claim 19 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below.
19. A log forming attachment for connection to a
conventional seamless siding forming machine to create an
elongated metal simulated log siding panel from a different
panel configuration created by and delivered from the
conventional siding forming machine, comprising:
a plurality of circular disks located to contact one side of
the panel configuration delivered from the siding forming
machine;
a plurality of circular elastomeric rollers located to
contact the other side of the panel configuration at a location
opposite from the circular disks;
and wherein:
each circular disk is associated with an elastomeric roller;
each disk and associated elastomeric roller are positioned
to receive between them the panel configuration delivered from
the siding forming machine;
each disk and associated elastomeric roller having a
relative separation between them which causes the delivered
panel configuration to be compressed into the elastomeric roller
by the disk as the delivered panel configuration moves between
the associated disks and rollers;
the compression of the panel configuration into the
elastomeric roller induces a permanent bend in the panel
configuration defined by the circular disk; and
each induced permanent bend simulates a hew line in the
simulated log siding panel.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence:
Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336

3
Steiling US 4,372,357 Feb. 8, 1983
Barinaga US 2008/0098790 A1 May 1, 2008
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
1. Claims 19, 20, and 25‒31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Steiling.
2. Claims 19, 20, and 25‒31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Steiling and Barinaga.2
ISSUE
In each ground of rejection, the Examiner found that Steiling discloses a log
forming attachment comprising circular disks (15) and circular rollers (20)
separated from each other to cause a panel to be compressed as it moves
between them, wherein the compression of the panel configuration into the
roller induces a permanent bend in the panel defined by the circular disk,
which bend simulates a hew line in the simulated log siding panel. Final
Act. 2‒3; Ans. 5, 10 (citing Steiling, col. 3, ll. 49‒56).3 The Examiner also
found that “although [Steiling] is mostly directed to use with wood

2 The Examiner entered the second ground of rejection as a New Ground of
Rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 4. The Examiner did not indicate
withdrawal of the first ground of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. As
such, we understand both grounds of rejection to be outstanding and before
us on appeal.
3 In the new ground of rejection, the Examiner proposed to modify the
circular rollers of Steiling to make them from an elastomeric material, as
taught by Barinaga. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336

4
material[,] it is also capable of being used with other materials in building
construction.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 5 (citing Steiling, col. 2, ll. 55‒60).
Appellant argues that “Steiling’s wood cutting equipment is incapable of
inducing permanent hew line-simulating bends in a sheet metal siding panel
of a different configuration to transform it into a simulated log siding panel.”
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that “[c]utting profiles into the
wooden panel [of Steiling] is not inducing permanent bends in sheet metal.”
Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3 (arguing that “Steiling is only applicable
to woodworking tools capable of cutting, not bending, wood or wood-like
material”).
An issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner’s finding that the
machine of Steiling is capable of causing a panel to be compressed as it
moves between the circular rollers and circular disks, wherein the
compression of the panel configuration into the roller induces a permanent
bend in the panel defined by the circular disk, which bend simulates a hew
line in the simulated log siding panel, is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
ANALYSIS
Steiling discloses:
a machine for cutting the outer surface of large panels, such as plywood,
hardboard, particle board, fiber board, or the like with wood working tools to
profile the outer face of such a board . . . so that when a plurality of such
panels are applied to the exterior of a wall, the completed wall will have an
appearance simulating a wall having lap siding thereon.
Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336

5
Steiling, col. 1, ll. 53‒63. Steiling discloses that panel 10 used in the
machine can be made from “plywood, hardboard, or other like material used
in building construction and suitable for being worked on with wood
working tools.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 53‒58 (emphasis added). The machine for
shaping or profiling surfaces of panels 10 includes a plurality of end-to-end,
“abutting planer heads 15, each rigidly secured on a driven shaft or arbor
16[,] which is rotatively supported by a frame 17.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 5‒10.
Steiling discloses that planer heads 15 are “provided with the usual knives
18” so that as arbor 16 is rotated, “the cutting edges of the knives of each
head 15 will move in a path which is slightly conical.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 10‒
15. The machine also includes hold-down rollers 20, each carried on a shaft
21, which is “rotatively supported from the frame 17 and positioned parallel
with and in spaced relation to and directly above the shaft or arbor 16 which
carries the planer heads 15.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 20‒26. In operation, panels 10
are fed “under the hold-down rolls 20 and across the driven planer heads 15
which impart to the lower side of each panel, the profile shown in [Figures]
1, 2[,] and 3.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 52‒54. This operation “leaves a profile
surface made up of a plurality of longitudinally extending, side by side,
slightly inclined strips 12 of boardlike appearance offset along their adjacent
edges by shallow, substantially perpendicular shoulders or ledges 11.” Id. at
col. 2, ll. 64‒68; Figs. 1‒3.
Based on these disclosures in Steiling, we find that Steiling discloses a
machine capable of planing cut-outs along a panel as it is fed through the
machine, when the panel is comprised of a material suitable for being
Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336

6
worked on with wood working tools. Steiling discloses that the hold-down
rollers 20 are spaced apart from planer heads 15 by a distance sufficient to
hold down panels 10 while they are being cut by knives 18 of planer heads
15. It is not clear by a preponderance of the evidence that the hold-down
rollers 20, even modified to make them elastomeric as proposed by the
Examiner, and the planer heads 15 are capable of compressing and inducing
a permanent bend in a workpiece. Depending on the material of the
workpiece, knives 18 of planer heads 15 are likely to either plane, or
puncture, or slice through the workpiece as it passes by planer heads 15. We
cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that the machine would
induce a permanent bend in the workpiece. Even if a panel were to result
from the modified machine of Steiling that looked like the planed wooden
boards of Figures 1‒3, cutting such a profile into the workpiece is not the
same as inducing permanent bends, as called for in claim 19.
For these reasons, the Examiner’s finding that the machine of Steiling is
capable of causing a panel to be compressed as it moves between the circular
rollers and circular disks, wherein the compression of the panel
configuration into the roller induces a permanent bend in the panel defined
by the circular disk, which bend simulates a hew line in the simulated log
siding panel, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19, 20, and 25‒31 is
REVERSED.

Appeal 2013-006920
Application 12/329,336

7
REVERSED

hh