Ex Parte Evans

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

12431435 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/431,435 04/28/2009
28278 7590 05/17/2016
BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS (Vancouver)
1200 WATERFRONT CENTRE
200 BURRARD ST., P.O. BOX 48600
VANCOUVER, BC V7X 1 T2
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John D. Evans
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PAT 101856-2 5142
EXAMINER
KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
IPMailVancouver@blg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JOHN D. EVANS
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John D. Evans (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 30-52. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
The Appellant's "invention relates generally to the field of compound
archery bows. In particular, certain embodiments of the invention relate to
single cam type compound archery bows." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 30, reproduced
below from page 11 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
30. A single cam compound bow comprising:
a handle portion having a first limb and a second limb
extending outwardly therefrom;
a wide body cam assembly pivotally coupled to the first
limb near an outer end thereof, the wide body cam assembly
comprising a main sheave and a collector sheave located on
opposite sides of a cable sheave, the main sheave spaced apart
from the cable sheave by a first distance;
a dual wheel assembly pivotally coupled to the second
limb near an outer end thereof, the dual wheel assembly
comprising a feed out sheave and a take in sheave separated by
a second distance which is larger than the first distance, the feed
out sheave positioned substantially within a plane defined by
the main sheave;
a first bowstring portion having a nock point thereon for
nocking an arrow, the first bowstring portion extending from
the main sheave of the wide body cam assembly to the feed out
sheave of the dual wheel assembly and a second bowstring
portion extending from the collector sheave of the wide body
cam assembly to the take in sheave of the dual wheel assembly;
and,
a cable having a first end coupled to the cable sheave of
the wide body cam assembly and a second end comprising a
split portion coupled to a pair of attachment points on or near
the outer end of the second limb on either side of the dual wheel
assembly
wherein the first distance is sufficient to permit arrows
knocked on the first bowstring portion extending between the
main sheave and the feed out sheave to be fired from the bow
2
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
free from interference by a cable extending within a plane
defined by the cable sheave without the use of a cable guard.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Evans US 5,782,229 July 21, 1998
Kronengold US 6, 792,930 B 1 Sept. 21, 2004
Larson (hereinafter US 7,441,555 Bl Oct. 28, 2008
"Larson '555")
Larson (hereinafter US 7,971,582 Bl July 5, 2011
"Larson '582")
REJECTIONS
Claims 30-38 and 41-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Evans in view ofKronengold and Larson '555.
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans in view ofKronengold, Larson '555, and Larson
'582.
ANALYSIS
Claims 30--38 and 41-52-Evans in view of Kronengold and Larson '555
Regarding independent claim 30, the Examiner finds that Evans
discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but
Evans is silent regarding a space (i.e. a first distance) between a
main sheave and a cable sheave[,] ... his wheel assembly
includ[ing] a feed out sheave and a take in sheave separated
from each other by a second distance[, and] ... his cable's
3
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
second end comprising a split connection coupled to a pair of
attachment points.
Final Act. 2-3. To cure these deficiencies, the Examiner turns to the
teachings in Larson '555 and Kronengold. Id. at 3-5.
The Examiner finds that Larson '555 discloses a wide cam assembly
(lower pulley assembly 85) 1 of three, spaced-apart cams (id. at 3 (citing
Larson '555, col. 7, 11. 17-51; Fig. 4)), and concludes that it would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan to space the cams of the Evans cam
assembly like the cams of the Larson '555 cam assembly in order to
"provid[ e] forces that are approximately equal at the left and right sides of
pivot axles, and in this arrangement drawing the bowstring imparts
practically no additional leaning tendency to either cam/wheel assemblies."
Id. (citing Larson '555, col. 7, 11. 17-51).
The Examiner finds that Kronengold discloses a single-cam bow
having a cam assembly (bowstring track 442 and cable track 443 of cam
217) and a dual wheel assembly (bowstring pulley 1001 and (cable)
mechanical pulley 1002 of pulley set 1000) with the wheel spacing larger
than the track spacing of the cam assembly (id. at 3-5 (citing Kronengold,
col. 6, 11. 18-29; Figs. 4, 10)), and concludes that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to include the dual wheel assembly of
Kronengold with the Evans bow "to provide a single-cam compound bow in
which torque applied to the power-cam limb, as the bow is drawn and
released, is reduced or eliminated." Id. at 4 (citing Kronengold, col. 3, 11.
20-47)). The Examiner also finds that one end of the Kronengold cable has
1 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the cited references.
4
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
a split portion, and that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
include such a cable with the Evans bow because "[t]he use of a split
connection is well-known in the art and does not provide any new or
unobvious matter." Id. at 5 (citing Kronengold, col. 5, 11. 8+; Fig. 7).
The Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner's rejection is
improper because it does not address the requirement of claim 30 that the
bowstring has first and second portions with
the first bowstring portion extending from the main sheave of
the wide body cam assembly to the feed out sheave of the dual
wheel assembly and a second bowstring portion extending
from the collector sheave of the wide body cam assembly to the
take in sheave of the dual wheel assembly.
App. Br. 7. Kronengold, the Appellant argues,
teaches a single cam compound bow having a cam at the end of
one [limb] and a set of two pulleys at the end of the other limb.
One of the two pulleys, referred to by Kronengold as a
bowstring pulley . .. , receives a bowstring, and the other of the
two pulleys, referred to by Kronengold as a cable pulley or a
mechanical pulley ... , receives a cable.
Id. at 5. Thus, the Appellant argues, "[i]t would not be obvious to use the
[cable] pulley 1002 of Kronengold to accept a portion of the bowstring,
since then there would be no pulley which could accept the cable." Id. at 7.
As noted by the Examiner, "the test [for obviousness] is what the
combined teachings of [the secondary] references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 12 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981)). Kronengold teaches the replacement of a single
(bowstring) pulley of known single-cam compound bows with a pair of
pulleys, one for the bowstring and one for the cable. See Kronengold, col. 4,
5
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
11. 59---62; col. 5, 11. 8-29. Whereas prior compound bows contain a single
stretch of cable (that is, the cable stretches from a first bow end to the
second bow end without returning back to the first end), the inclusion of the
pulley pair allows "[t]wo stretches of a bowstring [to] extend between the
free outer ends of the limbs, and two stretches of cable [to] extend between
the free outer ends of the limbs." Id. at col. 3, 11. 60---63 (emphasis added);
see also id. at col. 5, 11. 8-29. This rigging arrangement allows each of the
cable and the bowstring, independently, to be coupled symmetrically at the
cam end of the bow (see, e.g., id. at Figs. 3---6), avoiding the problematic
torque created by connecting a cable end to a first side of the cam and a
bowstring end to the opposite side of the cam (see id. at col. 2, 11. 17-20).
The embodiment of the Kronengold pulley set cited by the Examiner
(second alternate pulley set 1000 of bowstring pulley 1001 and mechanical
(cable) pulley 1002) functions similarly, but the cable pulley is provided in
two portions having different diameters to provide for additional control of
the mechanical advantage provided by the cam and the resulting bending of
the bow limbs. See id. at col. 6, 11. 18--46; col. 7, 11. 26-33. Thus,
Kronengold suggests including a cable pulley, in addition to a drawstring
pulley, with a single-cam compound bow to provide two stretches of cable
between the bow ends, thereby allowing both cable ends to be secured on the
same bow limb.
The Examiner proposes to modify the Evans bow to include the
Kronengold pulley set to reduce or eliminate the torque applied to the bow
limb carrying the cam, "being motivated by Kronengold's suggestion."
Final Act. 4. However, claim 30---as well as the Examiner's rejection
6
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
thereof-requires a first end of the cable to be coupled to the cable sheave of
the cam assembly at a first bow limb, and the second end of the cable to be
coupled to the second bow limb. See App. Br. 11; Final Act. 2-3, 5. Thus,
there is only one stretch of cable, and, therefore, the Examiner has not
provided a colorable reason to include the Kronengold cable pulley with the
Evans bow, as "Kronengold's suggestion" is to add a cable pulley and a
second stretch of cable.
Furthermore, were one properly motivated to include the Kronengold
cable pulley with the Evans bow, the Examiner has not provided any
discussion about, nor reason for, modifying the Kronengold cable pulley to
instead be a second bowstring pulley. Evans, the primary reference relied
upon by the Examiner, teaches a compound bow with the bowstring rigged
to stretch from the cam assembly at a first bow end, to and around the single
pulley on the second bow end, and back to the cam assembly on the first
end. Evans, col. 3, 11. 36-45; Fig. 1. Thus, were one to add Kronengold's
pulley set to the Evans bow, the bowstring would be rigged as provided in
Evans---extending from the cam, around the (Kronengold) bowstring pulley,
and back to the cam. The Examiner has not established any reason why the
bowstring would instead be extended around both the bowstring pulley and
the cable pulley of the Kronengold pulley set.
The Examiner's rejection fails to adequately demonstrate that the
subject matter of independent claim 30 would have been obvious over the
combination of the Evans, Kronengold, and Larson '555 references. The
rejection of this claim, as well as that of claims 31-38 and 41-52 depending
therefrom, is not sustained.
7
Appeal2014-005601
Application 12/431,435
Claims 39 and 40---Evans in view of Kronengold, Larson '555,
and Larson '582
Larson '582 is not relied upon by the Examiner in any manner that
would remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to the proposed
combination of Evans, Kronengold, and Larson '555 in rendering obvious
the subject matter of claim 30. Therefore, the rejection of claims 39 and 40
is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 30-38 and 41-52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans in view ofKronengold
and Larson '5 5 5 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Kronengold, Larson
'555, and Larson '582 is reversed.
REVERSED
8