Ex Parte Debaes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

11174834 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOHNY DEBAES and STEPHAN VANNESTE
____________________

Appeal 2009-013844
Application 11/174,834
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-013844
Application 11/174,834
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a system for supporting a cutting bench in a
face-to-face weaving machine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A face-to-face weaving machine (15) comprising a cutting
bench (3) to guide the movement of a cutting blade in order to
cut a face-to-face fabric (18), wherein said cutting bench (3) is
carried and/or supported at its extremities (16) by the frame
(11) of the weaving machine (15) and characterized in that, at
least at one additional location between said extremities (16),
said cutting bench (3) is carried and/or supported by the frame
(1).

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Juillard US 4,478,255 Oct. 23, 1984

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Juillard. Ans. 3.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review we
have determined that the applied prior art does not establish the lack of
Appeal 2009-013844
Application 11/174,834
3
novelty of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection on appeal is
reversed. Our reasons follow.
The Examiner relies on the guiding table 2 and rule 4 of Juillard as the
structure anticipating the claimed element of a cutting bench. The Examiner
states this part of the rejection as follows:
The disclosure above clearly discloses face-to-face or
velvet weaving. And that the guiding table guides the fabric, as
claimed, and that the combination of the guiding table 2 and the
rule 4, does to some extent guide the cutting knife as the [sic]
they define the area of pile that is cut in the mid point (center)
and that the rule must be parallel or the knife will cut the pile
unevenly. Therefore the combination of the guiding table and
the rule, can clearly be considered a ‘cutting table’ as claimed.
Ans. 4.
We do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of the
guiding table and rule satisfy the claim limitation of a cutting bench.
Appellants’ claims define the cutting bench as the structure that guides the
cutting blade or knife. However, it is clearly the case that the guide table and
rule that the Examiner relies on as a “cutting table” instead support and
guide the uncut layers of the cloth and not the cutting blade or knife. See col.
1, ll. 19-25. This passage makes clear that the table and the rule support and
guide the cloth and not the knife. Thus the table and rule in Juillard are
actually the same structure as Appellants’ lower rod 1 and upper rod 2 as
provided for in Appellants’ Specification and Drawings. See Spec. 5, ll. 20-
24. Consequently, it is our finding that the table and rule relied upon by the
Examiner as anticipating the claimed element of the cutting bench do not
actually guide the cutting knife as required by the claim, and therefore
Juillard does not show every element of the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, it is our finding that Juillard does not anticipate claims 1-9.
Appeal 2009-013844
Application 11/174,834
4

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.

REVERSED

nlk

JAMES C. WRAY
1493 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
SUITE 300
MCLEAN VA 22101