Ex Parte Caluori

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2010

11070913 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAYMOND J. CALUORI
____________

Appeal 2009-001293
Application 11/070,913
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: January 28, 2010
____________

Before MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, KEN B. BARRETT, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Raymond J. Caluori (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Peot (US 6,755,107 B2, issued Jun. 29,
Appeal 2009-001293
Application 11/070,913

2
2004) and claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable given Peot and
Ushiwata (US 2005/0000342 A1, published Jan. 6, 2005). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE.
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to light-emitting cut alignment devices.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
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, and a circular blade having a central
aperture through which the shaft fits, the blade having a flat
surface that is transected by the central aperture and wherein the
surface lies in a plane of the blade, the cut alignment device
comprising:
a structural housing;
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 housing is mounted on the rotary shaft, and
wherein the light source projects a light beam from the housing
directed slightly away from the plane of the blade at a positive
angle such that the beam is not parallel to the plane of the blade
and never intersects the plane of the blade, to assist the operator
in cutting accurately.

The Rejections
The Examiner finds that Peot’s light-emitting cut alignment device
anticipates the claimed feature of a light source projecting its light beam
from its housing at an angle that is directed slightly away from the plane of
the blade because Peot discloses “positioning the light beam as close as
possible to the cut line.” Ans. 4. The Examiner posits that this disclosure
permits a finding that the light beam emitted by Peot is not parallel to the
Appeal 2009-001293
Application 11/070,913

3
plane of the blade and never intersects the plane of the blade as called for in
the claims. Ans. 4.
Contentions
Appellant contends Peot describes that its light beam is directed
toward the plane of the blade and not away from the blade as claimed. App.
Br. 8 and Reply Br. 6.

OPINION
Issues
The determinative issue in this appeal is:
Does Peot disclose the claimed feature of a light source projecting its
light beam from its housing at an angle that is directed slightly away from
the plane of the blade, as called for in the claims?
Pertinent Facts
Claim 1 calls for the light source to project a light beam from the
housing directed slightly away from the plane of the blade at a positive
angle. Peot discloses that either the light source projects its beam parallel to
the blade or inwardly toward the blade. Col. 3, ll. 59-61; Col. 4, ll. 3-5; and
Col. 5, ll. 18-21. Peot acknowledges that the module of the light source is
axially offset from the blade. As such, Peot discloses that the module is
mounted at a slight angle relative to the blade so that the projected light is
formed on the workpiece in alignment with “the edge of the blades when the
arbor is rotated.” Col. 5, ll. 27-28. With such a configuration, Peot
discloses that the emitted light projects as close as possible to the point
where the blade will cut the workpiece so that “markings corresponding to
Appeal 2009-001293
Application 11/070,913

4
the desired location of cut on the workpiece 18 can be closely aligned with
the laser beam 48.” Col. 5, ll. 30-32.
Principles of Law
To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed
invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
claim. See Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
Analysis
In light of the findings above, the Examiner erred in finding that Peot
anticipates the claimed feature contended by the Appellant. Peot either
projects the emitted light parallel to the blade or at an angle toward the
blade, i.e., an angle toward the plane of the blade. The claimed invention
requires projection of the emitted light to be away from the plane. The
Examiner’s analysis in the Answer (Ans. 7-8) concerning how Peot’s
emitted light is neither parallel to the blade nor intersects the plane of the
blade overlooks the claimed feature1 preceding such functional language.
Consequently, the Examiner’s findings fail to identify where within Peot’s
disclosure the claimed feature contended by Appellant is found.

CONCLUSIONS
Peot does not disclose the claimed feature of a light source projecting
its light beam from its housing at an angle that is direct slightly away from
the plane of the blade, as called for in the claims.

1 Viz. “the light source projects a light beam from the housing directed
slightly away from the plane of the blade at a positive angle.” To construe
“positive” in order to address the determinative issue is superfluous.
Appeal 2009-001293
Application 11/070,913

5
The Examiner does not utilize Ushiwata to correct the deficiency in
the findings concerning Peot.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls

BRIAN M. DINGMAN, ESQ.
MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP
1700 WEST PARK DRIVE
WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581-3941