Ex parte Kewin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 11, 2000

09255276 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 11, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DANIEL D. KEWIN
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, STAAB and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-10, all the claims currently pending in
the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a tubular core assembly
for a roll of paper (claims 1-5), and to an annular end member
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
This is appellant’s own patent.1
2
for insertion into an end portion of a hollow cylindrical core
member (claims 6-10). An understanding of the invention can
be acquired from a reading of representative claim 1, a copy
of which is found in an appendix to appellant’s main brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Bushell et al. (Bushell) 5,441,780 Aug. 15,
1995
Kewin 5,595,356 Jan. 21,
1997
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over “Kewin in view of Bushell et al or vice
versa” (answer, page 3).
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 11 and 13), and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 12) for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Kewin pertains to a tubular core assembly for a roll of1
paper or other sheet material, and comprises a hollow
cylindrical core member 12 and an annular end member 14 of
metal or plastic material secured within each end of the core
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
3
member. Each end member includes radially projecting lugs 18,
20 that are received in notches 22, 24 in the core member to
facilitate the transmission of torque and axial pressure from
the end member to the core member (column 3, lines 55-57). In
addition, the inner annular surface of the end member includes
notches 26, 28, 30, 32, the purpose of which is to engage a
key on a chuck (column 2, lines 1-16; column 4, lines 60-64).
Accordingly, rotational movement of the chuck can be imparted
to the end member and thence to the core member.
Bushell relates to a paper tube 3 having plastic end ring
supports 7, 9. As can be seen from a review of the drawing
figures, especially Figure 2, the paper tube and end rings are
constructed such that the tube and end ring assembly has a
uniform inside diameter and a uniform outside diameter. As
explained at column 1, lines 21-27, heavy gauge tubes of this
type may be used to wind yarn or cloth, or for holding heavy
items such as carpeting. These heavy gauge tubes “are usually
supported on mandrels so that the product can be loaded onto
the tube or removed from the tube” (column 1, lines 27-30).
Looking at the examiner’s § 103 rejection from the
perspective of Kewin as the starting point of the rejection,
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
4
the examiner concedes that Kewin does not disclose an end
member
14 having an inner annular surface 36 at the lug end of the
end member that is continuous and of constant radius around
the circumference thereof, as called for in the appealed
claims. Nevertheless, the examiner contends that it would
have been obvious to make the inner annular surface of Kewin’s
end member continuous and of constant radius around the
circumference thereof because
chucks having a continuous, constant radius outer
circumferential surface which may or may not be
expandable or mandrels having such surfaces are old
and well known in the art, and to make the inner
circumferential surface of the end members of Kewin
conform to the shape of the chucks or mandrels used
to support the core would have obviously followed
especially in view of the teaching of Bushell et al.
[Answer, page 3.]
Assuming for the sake of argument that expandable chucks
having a continuous, constant radius outer circumferential
surface are “old and well known in the art” as asserted by the
examiner, it is not apparent to us why it would have
“obviously followed” to provide the inner annular surface of
Kewin’s end member with a continuous, constant radius inner
annular surface to “conform” to the shape of such old and well
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
The noun “chuck” denotes “[a] clamp that holds a tool or2
material being worked in a machine such as a lathe.”
Webster’s III New Riverside University Dictionary, Riverside
Publishing Company, copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin
Company.
The noun “mandrel” denotes “[a] spindle or axle for3
securing or supporting material being machined.” Webster’s
5
known chucks. Certainly, nothing in Kewin would have
suggested such a modification. Instead, Kewin suggests just
the opposite, namely, that the inner annular surface of the
end member should be provided with notches to make the end
member compatible with a variety of different types of chucks
(see column 1, lines 52-62). As to Bushell, we have carefully
reviewed this reference and conclude that there is no teaching
therein that would justify modifying the chuck receiving inner
annular surface of Kewin in the manner proposed by the
examiner. In this regard, while Bushell certainly discloses
an end cap having a continuous, constant radius inner annular
surface, Bushell provides no cogent reason for providing this
feature in Kewin’s end member. In this regard, Bushell’s end
member is not used in conjunction with a chuck (i.e., a clamp2
member capable of transmitted torque), but rather in
conjunction with a mandrel, which we understand as not3
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
III New Riverside University Dictionary, Riverside Publishing
Company, copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
6
involving any clamping or torque transmitting function but
instead merely a supporting function for allowing rotation of
the end member and its associated core member. Given the
shortcoming of Bushell, and the teachings of Kewin that the
inner annular surface of the end member should be configured
to receive a variety of different types of chucks, the
examiner’s position with respect to modifying Kewin based on
the construction of conventional expandable chucks and/or the
teachings of Bushell is not well founded.
As to utilizing Bushell as the starting point of the
rejection, the examiner implicitly acknowledges that Bushell’s
end members do not have radially projecting lugs for
cooperating with lug receiving notches in the core member, as
called for in the appealed claims. The examiner contends,
however, that it would have been obvious to provide the end
members of Bushell with radially projecting lugs “to more
securely connect the end members to the core member in view of
the teachings of Kewin” (answer, page 3). Inasmuch as Kewin’s
radially projecting lugs are for the express purpose of
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
7
facilitating transmission of torque and axial pressure from
the end member to the core member (column 3, lines 55-57),
incorporating radially projecting lugs into Bushell’s end
member would serve no useful purpose. This is so because
Bushell’s end members are designed to cooperate with a
mandrel, which, as far as we can tell, is merely for the
purpose of supporting the end and core members in a way that
allows for rotation thereof, rather than for the purpose of
positively transmitting torque and/or axial loads to the end
member and thence to the core member.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of claims 1-10 as being unpatentable
over Kewin and Bushell, each in view of the other.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
8
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS:hh
Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
9
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
120 King St. West, Suite 560
Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4V2
Canada