12419350 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

Ex Parte Kaye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2014

12419350 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

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. 12/419,350 04/07/2009 Thomas R. Kaye JR. TN-09218A 1432 28268 7590 05/30/2014 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION 701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199 TOWSON, MD 21286 EXAMINER WELLINGTON, ANDREA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3722 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2014 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 THOMAS R. KAYE, JR., CRAIG A. OKTAVEC, DARYL S. MEREDITH, STEPHANIE L. VOGEL, LEE M. BRENDEL and BRIAN P. WATTENBACH ____________ Appeal 2012-005747 Application 12/419,350 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005747 Application 12/419,350 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Thomas R. Kaye, Jr. et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11 and 16. The remaining claims pending in the application, claims 13-15 and 17-20, are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a miter saw with a bevel stop assembly. Independent claim 11, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative: 11. A miter saw comprising: a base assembly; a table disposed on the base assembly; a saw assembly rotatably supported by the table about a bevel axis, the saw assembly comprising a support housing rotatably connected to the table, a pivotable arm supported by the support housing, a motor supported by the arm and a blade driven by the motor; and a bevel stop assembly for fixing the rotational position of the saw assembly relative to the table, the bevel stop assembly comprising a handle disposed on the support housing, a member being movable by the handle, and an adjustable first plate disposed on the table, the first plate having a first notch for receiving the member, wherein the member is movable about an axis substantially parallel to the first plate by the handle Appeal 2012-005747 Application 12/419,350 3 between a first position engaging the first notch, and a second position not engaging the first notch, wherein the first plate is adjustable relative to the table so that adjusting the plate changes a position of the first notch relative to the bevel axis. THE REJECTION The Examiner has rejected claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carroll (US 2003/0150311 A1, published Aug. 14, 2003) in view of Parks (US 2001/0047706, published Dec. 6, 2001). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Carroll teaches a miter saw having a bevel stop assembly comprising “a handle (hand contacting portions of 410) positioned on the support housing (the pivotable arm 211 is on the support housing 210 and the handle is on the pivotable arm) . . . . ” Ans. 4-5. Appellants argue that it is unreasonable to interpret the claim language calling for “a handle disposed on the support housing” where the claim identifies a support housing and a pivotable arm as two separate elements, as being met by a handle on a pivotable arm that is connected to a support housing. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2-3. In response, the Examiner notes that “the claimed structure does not require a direct connection between the support housing and the handle.” Ans. 6. During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, Appeal 2012-005747 Application 12/419,350 4 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Internal citation and quotations omitted). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). An appropriate definition of “dispose,” in the context of the claim language “disposed on,” is “to put in a particular . . . place.”1 This is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which discloses positioning or putting the claimed handle (rod 42) in place on the support housing. Spec., Fig. 4. Accordingly, the Examiner’s claim interpretation, which relies on the view that an indirect connection between the support housing and the handle would meet the “disposed on” limitation, is unreasonably broad in view of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “dispose” as it would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection of claims 11 and 16 is not sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 11 and 16 as being unpatentable over Carroll and Parks is reversed. REVERSED hh 1 Dictionary.com, accessed at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispose?s=t, last viewed May 27, 2014.