Ex Parte Gustavsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13884485 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/884,485 07/25/2013
24998 7590 09/04/2018
Blank Rome LLP
1825 EYE STREET NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Conny Gustavsson
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.
E0226.0261/P261 8413
EXAMINER
DONG,LIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
W ashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CONNY GUSTA VSSON, HASSE HULTMAN,
LARS LINDEN, and JIM FROLANDER
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-17, 19, and 21-23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief indicates that Dell Cron AB is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a combination of a sawing machine and a
saw blade with a code symbol representing a unique identity for the saw
blade. Spec. 2:9--15. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Sawing machine for sawing micro trenches in an area
comprising a first layer and a second layer, said first layer being
a surface layer, such as asphalt or concrete, and said second layer
being a bearing layer to said first layer, wherein said micro
trenches are adapted for receiving at least one duct/cable; said
sawing machine comprising a stabilizing device arranged for
stabilizing the walls of the micro trenches when placing
ducts/cables into the micro trenches, and further comprising at
least one saw blade comprising coding elements forming at least
one code symbol representing a unique identity for said saw
blade, wherein said at least one code symbol function as an
immobilizer for said sawing machine, said sawing machine being
arranged to not start if said unique identity is not valid.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wright
Zeiler
Purcell
Mendelovich
Lowder
Proska
Ruhl
us 5,807,005
US 7,431,682 B2
US 2005/0191133 Al
US 2005/0125343 Al
US 2006/0060030 Al
US 2007 /0200664 Al
US 2011/0016754 Al
2
Sept. 15, 1998
Oct. 7, 2008
Sept. 1, 2005
June 9, 2005
Mar. 23, 2006
Aug.30,2007
Jan. 27, 2011
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 1, 6, 10-14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruhl, Zeiler, and Wright.
(II) Claims 2, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruhl, Zeiler, Wright, and Mendelovich
(III) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruhl, Zeiler, Wright, and Lowder.
(IV) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ruhl, Zeiler, Wright, and Purcell.
(V) Claims 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ruhl, Zeiler, Wright, and Proska.
OPINION
Re} ection (I)
The Examiner finds Ruhl discloses all of the elements required by
claim 1, except for coding elements that form at least one code symbol
representing a unique identity for a saw blade and the recited functional
relationship between the code symbol and the sawing machine. Final Act.
2-3. The Examiner relies on Zeiler to teach at least one code symbol that
represents a unique identity for a saw blade. Id. at 3 ( citing Zeiler, 1: 18-27).
Regarding the requirement that the sawing machine be arranged not to start
if the unique identity is not valid, the Examiner relies on Wright to teach a
cartridge lockout system for a printer including a printer engine that will not
start unless a machine class code matches a cartridge class code. Id. at 3--4.
3
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
Appellants' central argument with respect to Rejection (I) relates to
the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the
term "unique identity" in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants state,
[b ]y "unique identity," as is made clear in the specification, the
present invention provides each saw blade with an identifier (in
the form of coding elements) which uniquely identifies that
particular saw blade, akin to a serial number or the way a bar
code uniquely identifies a particular ticket (for a specific seat) for
an event.
Appeal Br. 6. Thus, Appellants contend that the term "unique identity"
refers to the identity of a specific saw blade the same way a serial number
identifies a particular item. Appellants quote portions of pages 4 and 6 of
the Specification in support of this claim interpretation. Id. at 7-8.
Based on this claim interpretation, Appellants assert that Zeiler fails to
disclose a code symbol representing a unique identity for a saw blade. Id. at
9. Appellants argue that rather than a code symbol akin to a serial number,
the coding disclosed by Zeiler is similar to a model number that identifies a
type of saw blade (not a specific item) or that communicates a speed of
rotation of the saw blade. Id. (citing Zeiler, 4:43-5:14).
In response, the Examiner states that Appellants' interpretation of
"unique identity" is not supported by the Specification, and, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of this claim term, in light of the Specification, is
"something that makes one item different from another." Ans. 2. Under this
interpretation, the Examiner finds that "a character trait such as the size of
... [a] blade or different teeth pattern of the saw blade can all be
consider[ed] a 'unique identity,' [and] in this case a group of 10 inch saw
blades is unique from a group of 12 inch saw blades." Id. at 2-3. The
Examiner states that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1,
4
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
communication member 24 of Zeiler qualifies as a coding element forming a
code symbol representing a unique identity. Id. at 3.
In reply, Appellants contend that, "according to the Examiner,
'unique' means 'different from another,' as opposed to the dictionary[2J
definition and common usage of the term as meaning 'different from all
others,' i.e., 'being the only one."' Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants then reiterate that the Specification supports an interpretation of a
code symbol representing a unique identity as something akin to a serial
number of a saw blade, i.e., something that indicates that particular blade,
rather than something indicating a type of saw blade. See id. at 2--4.
Appellants have the better position regarding the broadest reasonable
interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the term "unique identity" in
claim 1. The Specification states that, "[b ]y giving the saw blade a unique
identity[,] the following advantages can be ... [ obtained]" and then lists a
variety of benefits that are related to tracking the use of a particular saw
blade rather than tracking the use of a type of saw blade. Spec. 4. For
example, some of the advantages the Specification associates with providing
the saw blade a code symbol representing a unique identity are: "[f]ull
traceability of the saw blade from production to destruction," "[a]utomatic
documentation of events and errors,""[ o ]n-line billing based on wear and
tear," and that "[t]he position of the saw blade in X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates
are documented in real time." Id. The Specification also states, "[t]he
sawing machine reads the saw blade['s] unique identity ID which in this
case acts as a key," and "[t]he information about the saw blade and its
2 Appellants refer to "Webster's Dictionary," but do not provide a specific
citation to any specific version of this dictionary.
5
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
history is collected in the sawing machine's on board computer. The saw
blade's identity ID is linked to other information that is generated by the
sawing machine's various sensors which describe all deviations and
conditions associated with use of the saw blade." Id. at 9.
Additionally, the Specification explicitly distinguishes the "unique
identity" of a saw blade from the "type" of a saw blade. See Spec. 5 ("It
should however be reali[ z Jed that the coding elements may also comprise
further information besides the unique identity. For example, manufacturer,
production batch, type (so that correct type of saw blade is mounted for a
specific work), etc.").
The Examiner does not explain how the interpretation of a "unique
identity" as "a character trait such as the size of ... [a] blade or different
teeth pattern of the saw blade" (Ans. 2-3) is consistent with providing the
above-noted advantages associated with the unique identity of the saw blade
set forth in the Specification. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 2) that
the term "unique identity for said saw blade" in claim 1 refers to an identity
that is different from the identity of all other saw blades. Specifically, under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, the
unique identity of a saw blade as recited in claim 1 is akin to the saw blade's
serial number rather than the saw blade's type. Id. at 3.
The Examiner's unreasonably broad interpretation of claim 1 led to
the finding that communication member 24 of Zeiler qualifies as a coding
element forming a code symbol representing a unique identity. Ans. 3.
Zeiler discloses that "the communication member( s) 24 ( e.g., various
number of holes) in circular saw blades 20 indicate to the saw 28 the type of
material to be cut with the blade 20, the speed at which to run, etc." Zeiler,
6
Appeal2017-010366
Application 13/884,485
4:60-63 ( emphasis omitted). Zeiler provides an example of the use of
communication members 24 in which, a circular saw blade 20 with one
communication member 24 "could indicate to the circular saw 28 that the
blade 20 is for metal cutting, and in response, the saw 28 would run at 2000
strokes/minute." Id. at 5:3-5 (emphasis omitted). Thus, in Zeiler,
communication member 24 is used to identify a type of a saw blade rather
than the unique identity of the saw blade as recited in claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 6, 10-14,
and 23 depending therefrom as unpatentable over Ruhl, Zeiler, and Wright.
Re} ections (11)-(V)
Each of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 15-17 depends, directly or indirectly,
from claim 1, and claims 19, 21, and 22 recite a system including the sawing
machine recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13-15 (Claims App.). The
Examiner's reliance on Mendelovich, Lowder, Purcell, and Proska does not
remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding Rejection (I). See Final
Act. 6-10. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above regarding
Rejection (I), we do not sustain Rejections (II}-(V).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-17, 19, and
21-23 is reversed.
REVERSED
7