Ex Parte Caluori

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2009

10878988 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAYMOND J. CALUORI
____________

Appeal 2009-002031
Application 10/878,988
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: September 28, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and 9.
These are the only claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The claimed invention is directed to a cut alignment device for a
rotary saw which takes the place of the normal locking washer that locks the
blade on the arbor. The cut alignment device contains a light source located
Appeal 2009-002031
Application 10/878,988

2
within a housing which projects the light beam from the housing to assist the
operator in cutting accurately.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.

1. A cut alignment device for a rotary saw having a motor
which spins a cutting unit, the cutting unit including a rotary
shaft driven by the motor, a circular blade having a central
aperture through which the shaft fits, and a blade mounting
device for holding the blade on the shaft, the cut alignment
device comprising:

a structural housing defining at least two internal
compartments separated by one or more radial arms;

a battery power source located within the housing; and

a light source, operatively connected to the power source,
and located within the housing;

wherein the light source projects a light beam from the
housing directed toward the plane of the blade, to assist the
operator in cutting accurately.

REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
lack of novelty are:
Caluori US 6,035,757 Mar. 14, 2000
Dictionary.com, three page definition of “Compartment”

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Caluori.
Appeal 2009-002031
Application 10/878,988

3
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting has not been repeated by the
Examiner in the Answer and therefore stands withdrawn.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection of the claims on appeal in
light of the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this
review, it is our finding that the patent to Caluori does not establish the lack
of novelty of claims 1, 4, 7, and 9. Therefore, the rejection of the claims on
appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
It is our finding that Caluori discloses a cut alignment device having a
structural housing 12, a battery power source 16 located inside the housing,
and a light source 14 located inside the housing wherein the light source
projects the light beam from the housing to assist the operator in cutting
accurately. See col. 3, ll. 9-20 and Figs. 1A, 1B and 1D. Claim 1 requires a
radial arm separating the housing into at least two internal compartments.
The Examiner states that the housing of Caluori is separated into two
enclosed compartments by four “vertical” walls. Presumably, the Examiner
is referring to the four walls surrounding the central opening by which the
device is mounted on the arbor. None of these walls extend in a radial
direction and while the opening itself extends a little more along one axis
than on the other axis, an opening surrounded by walls cannot be construed
as an arm. We construe arm in this context to be a radially extending solid
body, and it is unreasonable to construe the opening surrounded by thin
walls on four sides as a radially extending arm.

Appeal 2009-002031
Application 10/878,988

4
With respect to claim 9, this claim does not require radially extending
arms or walls, but requires the housing to define at least two internal
compartments. We agree with the Examiner that the word “compartment” is
a relatively broad term. However, using the definition advanced by the
Examiner as “a part or space marked or partitioned off”, we believe it is
unreasonable to construe Caluori as having spaces marked or partitioned off.
The housing of Caluori comprises one large area with a smaller central
opening surrounded by an upstanding wall. A reasonable interpretation of
the structure of Caluori would be that the housing comprises but a single
compartment. Since claim 9 requires at least two compartments, the subject
matter of claim 9 does not lack novelty over the disclosure of Caluori.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

MIRICK O'CONNELL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP
1700 WEST PARK DRIVE
WESTBOROUGH MA 01581-3941