Ex Parte Gass et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2017

12583384 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SDT 361 7129
EXAMINER
FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/583,384 08/18/2009
27630 7590
SawStop Holding LLC
11555 SW Myslony Street
Tualatin, OR 97062
Stephen F. Gass
11/07/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN F. GASS, J. DAVID FULMER,
WILLIAM L. EMERY, and PAUL H. STASIEWICZ
Appeal 2017-0023081
Application 12/5 83,3 842
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 15 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 3, 2014)
and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 5, 2016), and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 5, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Feb. 4, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SD3, LLC. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002308
Application 12/583,384
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the “[Specification relates to table saws and
table saw components. More specifically, [the Specification relates to table
saws designed to incorporate safety systems.” Spec. 1,11. 7—8.
CLAIMS
Independent claims 15 and 21 are the only claims on appeal.
Claim 15 is representative and recites:
15. A table saw comprising:
a table to support a workpiece;
a blade extending at least partially through the table to cut
a workpiece on the table; and
an elevation mechanism configured to adjust the height of
the blade relative to the table, where the elevation mechanism
includes a handwheel mounted on a handwheel shaft, a first gear
mounted on the handwheel shaft, a transfer shaft having two
ends, a second gear mounted on the transfer shaft adjacent one
end to mesh with the first gear, a third gear or a spool mounted
on the transfer shaft adjacent the other end, and an elevation plate
supporting the blade, where third gear or the spool is operatively
connected to the elevation plate so that when a user applies a
force to operate the elevation mechanism by turning the
handwheel, the handwheel turns the handwheel shaft, which
turns the transfer shaft, which turns the third gear or spool, which
causes the elevation plate to move.
Appeal Br. 7.
2
Appeal 2017-002308
Application 12/583,384
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boice3 in view of Konen.4
DISCUSSION
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, the Examiner finds that Boice discloses a
table saw as claimed except that Boice does not include second and third
gears as claimed. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that “Konen teaches the
use of a transfer shaft (see Fig. 4) having a second gear 68 and a third
gear 88 for the purpose of increasing the torque to facilitate the transfer of
the movement.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Boice’s table saw to include the second and third gears as
claimed “to obtain a device that [] increases the torque to facilitate
movement of the [elevation] plate.” Id. The Examiner also finds:
[i]t is well known in the art to replace a direct connection
between two elements with a transmission with gears of different
diameter to increase [] the torque to ease the movement of an
object. For that reason, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to take
advantage by adding [to] the transmission to ease the movement
of the plate of Boice et al.
Ans. 3.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection by Appellants’ arguments.
3 Boice et al., US 2,810,408, iss. Oct. 22, 1957.
4 Konen, US 7,293,362 B2, iss. Nov. 13, 2007.
3
Appeal 2017-002308
Application 12/583,384
First, Appellants argue that “[njeither Boice nor Konen disclose[s] or
suggests] a third gear or spool operatively connected to an elevation plate
so that an elevation plate moves when the third gear or spool turns.” Appeal
Br. 4. This argument against the references individually is not persuasive
because the rejection relies on the combination of Boice and Konen to show
that the use of a third gear as claimed would have been obvious. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (In responding to a prima
facie case of obviousness, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references.).
Second, Appellants argue that it is not clear how Konen’s gears could
be incorporated into Boice’s device. Appeal Br. 4—5. However, “[t]he test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner does not propose that Konen’s gears
be physically incorporated into Boice’s device. Instead, the Examiner
concludes that the combined teachings of Boice and Konen would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the Appellants’ invention. Thus,
Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion
regarding the combined teachings of the references.
Third, Appellants argue that “there is no suggestion that Boice’s
elevation mechanism has a need for increased torque, and the examiner did
not identify any prior art reference recognizing or expressing a need for
increased torque in elevation mechanisms.” Appeal Br. 5. However, the
4
Appeal 2017-002308
Application 12/583,384
proposed motivation for an obviousness rejection need not be explicitly
stated in the art and may be based on the general knowledge of one skilled in
the art, which is the case here. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that
the combination would have been obvious based on the general knowledge
of one skilled in the art, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that it would have been obvious to use a transmission such as
that disclosed in Konen in Boice’s system in order to provide gears of
different diameter to increase torque and ease of movement of Boice’s
elevation plate. Ans. 4. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of
error in the rejection.
Finally, to the extent Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s
statement that the “[Specification [does not] provide[] any novelty of what
the additional shaft and gear accomplish” in the claimed device, we are not
persuaded of reversible error. See Ans. 4; see also Reply Br. 2—3. We find
that this statement, whether accurate or not, is not relevant to the rejection
before us, and thus, Appellants’ arguments regarding this statement do not
apprise us of reversible error in the rejection.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is similar to claim 15, but also requires that “the transfer
shaft is behind the blade relative to the feed direction.” Appeal Br. 7—8.
The Examiner finds that Boice’s transfer shaft 39 is behind the blade. Final
Act. 2 (citing Boice, Fig. 5). We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that this finding is in error. Appeal Br. 6. We agree with Appellants that
Boice clearly shows that transfer shaft 39 is in front of the blade 13, as
depicted in Figure 1, wherein the feed direction extends from the right of the
5
Appeal 2017-002308
Application 12/583,384
table saw to the left. Thus, because the Examiner has not shown that the art
teaches or otherwise renders obvious the presence of a transfer shaft behind
the blade as claimed, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 15 and we REVERSE the
rejection of claim 21 for the reasons provided herein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6