Ex parte Dombkowski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 1999

08642850 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 6, 1996.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN A. DOMBKOWSKI
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850 1
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges
GONZALES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the refusal of the examiner to
allow claims 3 and 4, all of the claims remaining in the
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
While the examiner has approved entry of the amendment filed September2
15, 1997, to claims 3 and 4, we note that this amendment has not been
clerically entered. We also note that the amendment was given the same paper
number (Paper No. 8) as the brief filed September 15, 1997.
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second3
paragraph, made in the final rejection has been withdrawn (answer, page 3).
2
application, as amended subsequent to the final rejection.2
We REVERSE.
The appellant's invention relates to rotary cutting die
plates and their associated rules or cutting blades used in a
rotary cutting machine and, more particularly, to rule guards
for insuring the alignment of adjacent confronting cutting
dies when mounted on a cutting machine cylinder. A more
complete understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 3, which appears as an attachment
to the amended brief filed on October 15, 1997 (Paper No. 10).
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
de Lanauze 4,012,978 Mar. 22, 1977
The following rejection is before us for review:3
claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by de Lanauze.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
3
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejec-tion, we make reference to the answer, mailed January
23, 1998 (Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief, filed September
15, 1997 (Paper No. 8) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. The determinations we have made and the reasons
behind them are set forth below.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Independent claim 3 calls for the combination of (a) a
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
4
two-piece arcuate die plate having confrontable edges mounted
in confrontation collinearly on a cylinder with segments of a
rule mounted in similar collinearity on each of the
confronting pieces of the die plate and (b) a pair of
symmetrical line-up guides allochiral in configuration with
each having a joint line coincident with the confrontable edge
of a respective piece of the die plate.
Like appellant's, de Lanauze's disclosure is generally
concerned with rotary die cutting machines having curved die
boards or plates mounted on cylinders and provided with
patterns
of cutting rules. However, de Lanauze is particularly
concerned
with the interconnection of cutting rule segments rather than
the interconnection of the curved die boards or plates. In
this regard, de Lanauze illustrates in Figure 1 a single
curved die board [1] which has been slotted with a pattern [2]
of cutting rules [3] made up of various cutting rule segments.
As shown in Figure 2, an individual rule segment taught by de
Lanauze has side edges [20, 22] each of which has a notch [24,
26] and a lip [28, 30]. Figure 4 shows a plurality of rule
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
5
segments [10] interconnected by way of the mating of the lips
[30] engaging the adjacent lip [28] and notch [24] of an
adjacent segment in the rule.
de Lanauze does not teach a pair of symmetrical line-up
guides allochiral in configuration with each having a joint
line coincident with the confrontable edge of a respective
piece of a two-piece arcuate die plate as required by claim 3.
The examiner reads the "two-piece arcuate die plate" of claim
3 on adjacent, interconnected rule segments 10 of de Lanauze
(answer, page 4). While it is true that the claims in a
patent application are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a pending
application's specification will not be read into the claims
during prosecution of a patent application (Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed.
Cir. 1988), it is also well settled that terms in a claim
should be construed in a manner consistent with the
specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
6
construe them (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d
1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot
Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). Here, the meaning given by the examiner to the
term "two-piece arcuate die plate" is inconsistent with both
the appellant's specification and the reference, each of which
describes the die plate or board as the element on which the
cutting rule is mounted. The rule segments [10] disclosed by
de Lanauze are used to form a cutting rule which, in turn, is
mounted on a die plate or board. We can think of no
circumstances under which the artisan, consistent with the
appellant's specification, would construe two interconnected
rule segments [10] as disclosed by de Lanauze to correspond to
the claimed "two-piece arcuate die plate."
In view of the above, we agree with the appellant (brief,
pages 8-11) that de Lanauze fails to show the combination of
(a)
a two-piece arcuate die plate having confrontable edges
mounted
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
7
in confrontation collinearly on a cylinder and (b) a pair of
symmetrical line-up guides having a joint line coincident with
the confrontable edge of a respective piece of the die plate.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 3 are not
present in de Lanauze, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 3 and dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is not
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2037
Application No. 08/642,850
8
Kenwood, Ross & Chester E. Flavin
120 Maple Street
Springfield, MA 01103