Ex Parte Homrich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12045105 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/045,105 03/10/2008
82074 7590 06/29/2016
Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Robert Homrich
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.
60137-539PUS1;
150-3244-U
8658
EXAMINER
SALONE, BAY AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL ROBERT HOMRICH 1
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 10-14 and 17-27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Brass Craft
Manufacturing Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention "relates to a clamping assembly used with a
material feeder," and "to a collet used in the clamping assembly." Spec. i-f 1.
The invention may be used in "a material feeder that provides material, such
as tubing, to a cutter assembly, which cuts the material to a desired length"
with the cutter assembly including the clamping assembly. Id. i-f 2
Claims on Appeal
Claims 10 and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 10 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reproduced below:
10. A clamping assembly for a cutter assembly comprising:
a tapered collar extending radially inward towards an axis;
a clamping sleeve movable along the axis relative to the
tapered collar, the clamping sleeve including flexible arms;
an actuator coupled to the clamping sleeve and configured
to move the clamping sleeve along the axis between extended
and retracted positions; and
a collet supported relative to the tapered collar, the collet
including circumferentially arranged axially extending fingers,
the clamping sleeve forcing the fingers radially inward in
cooperation with said tapered collar with the clamping sleeve in
the extended position, and a member biasing the fingers radially
outward with the clamping sleeve in the retracted position.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
Examiner's Rejections
I. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 20-22, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Schiller (US 3,874,688, iss. Apr. 1, 1975) and Hopf (US
4,867,463, iss. Sept. 19, 1989). Final Act. 2 (mailed May 22, 2013).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 1 7 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a)
over Schiller, Hopf, and Reichert (US 2,574,157, iss. Nov. 6, 1951). Final
Act. 4.
III. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Schiller, Hopf, Reichert, and Laughlin (US 1,946,629, iss. Feb. 13,
1934 ). Final Act. 7.
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Schiller, Hopf, and Yonezawa (US 4,948,105, iss. Aug. 14, 1990). Final
Act. 8.
V. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Schiller, Hopf, Reichert, Laughlin, and Martin (US 2,155,019, iss.
Apr. 18, 1939). Final Act. 8.
VI. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Schiller, Hopf, Reichert, Sweeney (US 5,584,513, iss. Dec. 17, 1996), and
Jones-Fenleigh (US 4,484,718, iss. Nov. 27, 1984). Final Act. 9.
VII. The Examiner rejected claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Schiller, Hopf, and Roberts (US 6,640,679 Bl, iss. Nov. 4, 2003).
Final Act. 10.
3
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
Claim 10 and 1 7
ANALYSIS
Claims 10 and 17 recite "an actuator coupled to the clamping sleeve
and configured to move the clamping sleeve along the axis between
extended and retracted positions." Appeal Br. 10, 11 (Claims App.).
Appellant challenges whether the combination of Schiller and Hopf teaches
this coupled limitation.2 Appeal Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 1-2. Specifically,
Appellant challenges whether Schiller teaches an actuator coupled to the
clamping sleeve as found by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 3--4; see also
Final Act. 2-3, Ans. 3--4, 14.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner relies on Schiller as teaching
an actuator coupled to the clamping sleeve. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
finds "the actuator (31) and the clamping sleeve (13) to be coupled since
movement of the actuator (31) automatically moves the clamping sleeve (31)
simultaneously." Id. The Examiner offers two theories. First, Schiller's
actuator and clamping sleeve "are only 'coupled' when they are in contact
with each other to permit simultaneous movement." Ans. 14. Second,
because Schiller discloses that the actuator and clamping sleeve "abut" one
another, the term "abuts" must "actually mean[] that the actuator is fixedly
'coupled' to the clamping sleeve." Id. The Examiner also finds Schiller
never discloses any separation between the two components; therefore, the
two components must be coupled so they can move in unison. Id.
2 The rejection of claim 17 is based on Schiller, Hopf, and Reichert. The
Examiner does not rely on Reichert as teaching the disputed coupled
limitation. See Ans. 6.
4
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
Appellant contends, and we agree, because the actuator (31) and the
clamping sleeve (13) of Schiller only abut one another, the Examiner has not
persuasively established that these two components are "coupled" as
required by claim 1 and claim 17. Appeal Br. 3--4.
At issue is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term
"coupled." We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims "their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" and "in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). The Specification of the pending application describes "[a]n actuator
is coupled to the clamping sleeve and is configured to move the clamping
sleeve along the axis between extended and retracted positions." Spec. i-f 5.
The Specification further discloses "[t]he actuators 34 move the clamping
sleeve 38 between a retracted position (shown in Figure 3) and an extended
position." Id. i-f 16. The claims and the Specification make clear that the
actuator and clamping sleeve are "coupled" to enable movement along the
axis relative to the tapered collar between extended and retracted positions.
When used in mechanical systems, the plain and ordinary meaning of
"coupled"3 means to link together or connect. Thus, we determine the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "an actuator coupled to the clamping
sleeve" is an actuator linked with or connected to the clamping sleeve. As
claimed, the purpose of this connection is to enable back and forth
movement (extension and retraction) along the axis.
3 See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coupled (coupled: "To link
together; connect").
5
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
We do not agree that Schiller's disclosure of an actuator and clamping
sleeve having ends that "abut" teaches or suggests the two components
"coupled" as required by the claims. Schiller describes the push tube 31
(actuator) is slidably received within the tube 23 and has one end that merely
abuts the collet 13 (clamping sleeve). See Schiller 3:26-29. The term
"abut" only infers that the two components are in contact - not linked with
or connected to one another. As Appellant persuasively argues, "the
'coupled' limitation has been conflated with the term 'contact' which is not
even recited in the claim language." Reply Br. 2. The Examiner has also
not persuasively established that the alleged contact would enable back and
forth movement (extension and retraction) along the axis as also required by
the claim.
Regardless of whether or not the ends of the push tube (31) and the
collet (13) maintain contact,4 the Examiner has not persuasively established
that these two components are coupled. For example, Schiller describes the
hollow push tube (31) having one end that abuts against the inner end of
collet (13), but in the same sentence Schiller also describes its opposite end
as "drivingly connected via linkage 16 to lever arm 15." Schiller, 3 :26-30.
Had Schiller intended the ends of the push tube and collet to be connected
(or to have a driving relationship), it would have similarly stated. We
4 In response to the Examiner's finding that Schiller never discloses any
separation between the two components (Ans. 14), Appellant cites to Figure
5 of Schiller. Appellant contends "the Figures of Schiller do in fact depict a
separation between these two components" as "evidenced by the dashed
lines of Figure 5." Reply Br. 2 (depicting an annotated Figure 5). We give
little weight to this argument because Figure 5 is described as "a prior art"
machine. Schiller, 2:35-39.
6
Appeal2014-005786
Application 12/045, 105
disagree with the Examiner's finding that simple contact establishes the two
components are coupled as required by claim 1 and claim 17. The Examiner
has also not adequately supported the statement that one of skill in the art
would have simply known to couple Schiller's actuator with the clamping
sleeve. See Ans. 14. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how the
proposed modification would be integrated or how it would impact
Schiller's operation.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 or claim 1 7.
Claims 11-14 and 18-27
The remaining dependent claims depend directly or indirectly from
claims 10 and 1 7. Although the Examiner relies on additional art in
rejecting the remaining dependent claims, the additional references are not
relied on to teach "an actuator coupled to the clamping sleeve and
configured to move the clamping sleeve along the axis between extended
and retracted positions" as required by claims 10 and 17. Accordingly, we
likewise do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-14 and 18-27.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-14 and 17-27.
REVERSED
7