Ex Parte Holdredge

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2014

12488888 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDOLPH ARTEMAS HOLDREDGE
____________

Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–15, and 17–22. An oral hearing was
held on October 2, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter is directed to a garden tool. Claims 1, 17,
and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads:
1. A garden tool comprising:
a handle having a longitudinal axis; and
a tool head comprising a single piece flat blade that is
bent in a substantially "J" shape, said flat blade having:
a substantially elongated horizontal base blade section
with a top, a flat bottom and two substantially parallel opposite
sides, each side having a beveled edge on the top of said
horizontal base blade section, said horizontal base blade section
further having a tip at a distal end of the horizontal base blade
section, wherein said horizontal base blade section has a
longitudinal axis;
a flange above and substantially parallel to the horizontal
base blade section;
a transitioning heel blade section having a curved first
end blade section connected to a proximal end of the horizontal
base blade section, a second end section connected to the
flange, and a flat middle blade section, said curved first end
blade section being curved along a transverse axis of said blade
so that said flat middle blade section is substantially
perpendicular to said horizontal base blade section and said
flange, wherein the curved first end blade section and a portion
of the middle blade section have beveled sides;
wherein said middle blade section, curved first end blade
section, and two substantially parallel sides of said horizontal
base are continuously slightly tapered inwardly from the middle
blade section to distal end, and wherein the longitudinal axis of
the handle extends substantially perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the horizontal base blade section in a first
direction substantially perpendicularly outward from the sides
of the horizontal base blade section, and further wherein the
longitudinal axis of the handle extends at an upright acute angle
to the top of said horizontal base blade section in a second
direction different from the first direction which provides for
the horizontal base blade section to be substantially parallel to a
worked surface when the garden tool is in use, and wherein the
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

3
beveled edge of one of the two sides is used when the tool is
pulled toward the user and the beveled edge of the other one of
the two sides is used when the tool is pushed away from the
user.

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Campbell (US 6,988,561 B1, issued Jan. 24, 2006),
King (US 83,290, issued Oct. 20, 1868), and Jones (US 1,279,704, issued
Sept. 24, 1918).
Claims 8–10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Campbell, King, Jones, and Donnini (US 4,177,864,
issued Dec. 11, 1979).
Claims 17–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Campbell, Jones, and Donnini.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11–15 — Campbell, King, and Jones
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, that “the longitudinal axis of the handle
extends substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the horizontal
base blade section in a first direction substantially perpendicularly outward
from the sides of the horizontal base blade section.” Emphasis added.
The Examiner finds that Campbell discloses a garden tool 20
comprising a handle 24 and a substantially elongated horizontal base blade
section 32 (Answer 2–3), but does not disclose that handle 24 extends
substantially outward from the sides of the horizontal base blade section 32
(id. at 5).
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

4
The Examiner finds that Jones discloses a garden tool comprising a
tool head comprising a flat blade (including body 8 and cutting edges 10),
and handle A having a longitudinal axis, which extends substantially
perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the horizontal base blade section
of the flat blade (citing Jones, Fig. 3) in a first direction substantially
perpendicularly outward from the sides of the horizontal base blade section.
Answer 5.
The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 1 of Jones.
Answer 17. In this figure, the “longitudinal axis of blade” is represented by
a first diagonal line extending from the bottom left corner to the upper right
corner 11 of body 8, and the longitudinal axis of handle A is represented by
a second diagonal line extending from the upper left corner to the lower right
corner 11 of body 8, perpendicular to the first diagonal line. Id. For
comparison, the Examiner also provides an annotated version of Figure 1 of
Appellant’s application (“flipped for ease of comparison”), which has
annotations showing the “longitudinal axis of blade” and the longitudinal
axis of the handle. Id. In this figure, the “longitudinal axis of blade” is
represented by a line extending along the length dimension of blade 34,
perpendicular to the line representing the longitudinal axis of the handle. Id.
In response, Appellant provides an annotated version of Figure 1 of
Jones. Reply Br. 2. In this figure, the “longitudinal axis of blade”
corresponds to a line extending from the left cutting edge 10 to the opposite,
right cutting edge 10 of body 8, and the “longitudinal axis of handle”
corresponds to a diagonal line extending from the upper left corner to the
lower right corner 11 of body 8, in the direction of cross web 9. Id. (see also
Appeal Br. 5). Comparing the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 1 of
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

5
Jones to Appellants’, there is apparent agreement as to the direction of the
longitudinal axis of handle A of Jones’ tool.
Appellant contends, however, that the “longitudinal axis of blade”
drawn by the Examiner in annotated Figure 1 of Jones is incorrect, because
the axis does not extend along the long side of body 8. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s comparison is wrong because the
longitudinal axis of Jones’ blade drawn by the Examiner is inconsistent with
the longitudinal axis of the blade of Figure 1 of Appellant’s application
drawn by the Examiner. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. The Examiner does not
adequately explain why the longitudinal axis of Jones’ blade 8 extends along
the direction of a diagonal of body 8, perpendicular to the direction of the
other diagonal of body 8, as shown in annotated Figure 1. Absent any
explanation, this determination by the Examiner’s appears to be arbitrary.
Appellant’s Specification describes “the longitudinal axis of the
handle 22 is positioned at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the
horizontal base 40 of the blade 34, as best shown by angle A in FIG. 6.” See
Spec. 8, ll. 2–4. Figure 6 shows that the longitudinal axis of the horizontal
base 40 extends along its length dimension. Accordingly, the direction of
the longitudinal axis of blade 34 shown in the Examiner’s annotated version
of Figure 1 of Appellant’s application is consistent with the Specification.
We also note that a dictionary definition of “longitudinal” is “of or relating
to length or the lengthwise dimension.” See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary 734 (11th ed. 2003). The direction of the longitudinal axis of
Appellant’s blade determined by the Examiner is also consistent with this
definition. However, the direction of the longitudinal axis of Jones’ blade 8
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

6
determined by the Examiner is inconsistent with both the Examiner’s
determination for Appellant’s blade and this definition. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that, in Jones, “the longitudinal
axis of the handle extends substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the horizontal base blade section in a first direction,” as recited in
claim 1. Thus, the Examiner has not articulated an adequate reason with a
rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Campbell, King, and
Jones to result in the garden tool of claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2,
6, 7, and 11–15.
Claims 8–10 and 22 — Campbell, King, Jones, and Donnini
The Examiner’s application of Donnini for the rejection of claims 8–
10 (Answer 8–9), which depend from claim 1, does not cure the above-
discussed deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 8–10.
Independent claim 22 recites, inter alia, that “the longitudinal axis of
said flat blade is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the
handle in a first direction.” The Examiner’s findings for Jones’ regarding
these claimed features (Answer 10; see also id. at 15–17) are substantially
the same as the Examiner’s findings for Jones regarding claim 1 discussed
above. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22 for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Claims 17–21 — Campbell, King, and Donnini
Independent claim 17 recites, inter alia, “a separate one-piece tang
having a first elongated leg portion connected to the flange portion of the J-
shaped blade and a second elongated leg portion formed at an angle to the
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

7
first elongated leg portion, said second elongated leg portion connected to
said handle.”
The Examiner finds that Campbell does not disclose “a tang having
multiple portions.” Answer 12. The Examiner finds that Jones discloses a
tang (shank 6) having a first elongated leg portion connected to a flange
portion (eye 7) on a blade (body 8 and cutting edges 10) and a second
elongated leg portion formed at an angle to the first elongated leg portion
and connected to handle A. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide Campbell’s tool with Jones’ handle connecting
means “to facilitate attachment of the tool head to many common cylindrical
wooden tool handles.” Id.
Appellant contends that “the Examiner ignores that the shank 6 of
Jones is not connected to a flange that is part of a J-shaped blade that
includes a flat elongated base blade and a heel blade.” Appeal Br. 7. The
Examiner responds that Campbell, not Jones, is relied on for teaching a J-
shaped blade including an elongated base and a heel blade. Answer 19.
Appellant does not apprise us of any error in the Examiner’s findings
regarding this teaching of Campbell, or in the Examiner’s reasoning for
combining the teachings of Campbell and Jones. Accordingly, this
contention is not persuasive.
Claim 17 also calls for a base blade section including “a distal tip
having a notch formed at a leading edge of the blade.”
The Examiner finds that Campbell and Jones do not disclose a notch.
Answer 13. The Examiner finds that Donnini discloses a garden tool 10
including a horizontal base having a tip (free cutting edge 26) containing a
notch 28. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

8
provide the combination of Campbell and Jones with the notched blade
means of Donnini to align and pull weeds. Id. (citing Donnini, col. 1, ll. 47–
49).
Appellant contends that Donnini’s tool “is a specialized tool whose
only function is to operate the notch.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also
contends that Campbell and Jones are designed for grading or leveling, not
for digging into a surface, and the configurations of these handles do not
permit a notch to dig into a surface. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that Donnini describes that the tool
has several functions, including leveling (citing Donnini, col. 2, ll. 8–12),
and that the notch is used for aligning and pulling weeds, not for digging
(citing Donnini, col. 1, ll. 47–49). Answer 20.
In light of Appellant’s acknowledgement that Campbell’s tool can be
used for leveling, and Donnini’s disclosure that its tool can be used for
leveling, Appellant’s contention that the tools of Campbell and Donnini have
different functions is not persuasive. Appellant also does not apprise us of
any error in the Examiner’s stated reason for providing a notch in
Campbell’s tool. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, recites limitations regarding
the orientation of the longitudinal axis of the handle with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the base blade section that are similar to those recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 for
reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1.
Appellant does not provide separate argument for claims 19–21,
which depend from claim 17. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 19-
21.
Appeal 2014-006470
Application 12/488,888

9
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 19–21, and reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7–15, 18, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh