Ex Parte Kollman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12349035 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
080775 4255
EXAMINER
LEE, LAURA MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/349,035 01/06/2009
7590 12/15/2016
Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corporation
One Oxford Centre
20th Floor
301 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
Michael Kollman
12/15/2016 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 MICHAEL KOLLMAN
Appeal 2014-0086811
Application 12/349,0352
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). The Appellant’s representative appeared for oral hearing in this
appeal on December 7, 2016 (“Hearing”).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed May 23, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 13,
2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jan. 6, 2009), and to the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 13, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed Dec. 2, 2013).
2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is “Lumino, Inc.”
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-008681
Application 12/349,035
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates to blind cutting machines and
methods of cutting or trimming blinds, particularly woven wood and woven
grass blinds.” Spec. 1.
Claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9, Claims App.) is the only independent claim on
appeal, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced
below (bracketing added for reference):
1. A window covering cutting machine comprising:
[(a)] a cutting mechanism, the cutting mechanism
having a housing that has at least one opening sized to
receive at least a portion of a window covering;
[(b)] a window covering support surface adjacent
the at least one opening;
[(c)] a clamp support positioned adjacent the at
least one opening of the housing such that the clamp
support is a fixed distance from the window covering
support surface, the clamp support having an opening;
[(d)] a rod passing through the opening in the
clamp support;
[(e)] a clamp block positioned adjacent one end of
the rod, the clamp block moveable relative to the window
covering support surface from an undamped position to a
clamping position;
[(f)] a spring having a first end and a second end
opposite the first end, the first end of the spring
connected to the rod and the second end of the spring
engaging the clamp block such that when the spring is
not fully compressed at least a portion of the spring is
located between the rod and the clamp block and the
spring is compressed when the clamp block is moved to
the clamping position and the spring expands when the
clamp block is moved out of the clamping position.
2
Appeal 2014-008681
Application 12/349,035
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4 and 6—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Weaver (US 6,170,372 Bl, iss. Jan. 9, 2001). Final Act. 2.
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weaver and Huang (US 2003/0070522 Al, pub. Apr. 17,
2003). Id. at 4.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires that the first end of the spring is
connected to the rod, the second end of the spring engages the clamp block,
and the spring is compressed when the clamp block is moved to the
clamping position and expands when the clamp block is moved out of that
position, as recited in limitation (f). We agree with the Appellant that
Weaver does not disclose this limitation. See Appeal Br. 4—7, Reply Br.
4—5.
The Examiner finds that Weaver discloses the spring of limitation (f)
in that the first end of the spring 101 is connected to rod 93 that “runs the
entire length of the clamp assembly” and “the first end of the spring is a part
of the spring so transitively so [sic] is the first part of the spring ‘connected
to’ the rod.” Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites to Weaver’s
Figures 3 and 4 for disclosing that the second end of the spring engages the
clamp block in that:
there is a clamp block/cylindrical sleeve 103 that contains the
spring 101, which has a substantially similar diameter as the
clamp block 103. The clamp block is hollow, is not fixed to any
other structure, and is free to float between the washers 102 and
95. As the clamp block 103 shifts, left to right, up and down,
3
Appeal 2014-008681
Application 12/349,035
around the rod 93, clearly it engages the spring 101 as it is not
bound in its movements.
Id. The Examiner further finds that Figures 3 and 4, respectively, show the
tool in the non-clamping and clamping positions. Id.
Weaver discloses, with reference to Figure 2, that rod 93 extends
upward from bore 94 in the bracket arm 75 through slot 92 with a first
washer 95 positioned around rod 93. Weaver, col. 5,11. 18—22. As shown in
Figure 3 of Weaver, spring 101 surrounds rod 93 above washer 95 and
extends upward to second washer 102. Id. at col. 5,11. 26—26. Cylindrical
sleeve 103 surrounds spring 101 between washers 95 and 102. Id. at col. 5,
11. 26—30, Fig. 3. When a wood panel placed on the surface of the table 3
encounters shoe 111, it causes shoe 111 to lift bar 81 against the action of
spring 101 to a point at which the top of sleeve 103 is in contact with washer
102 and the bottom of sleeve 103 is in contact with washer 95. Id. at col. 5,
11. 43—50, Fig. 2. At this “hold down height,” spring 101 is fully within
sleeve 103 and any further upward motion of bar 81 is against the bias of
spring 104. Id. at col. 5,11. 50-56. Figure 2 of Weaver is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2014-008681
Application 12/349,035
Weaver, Fig. 2, showing a perspective view of a portion of the table with a
spring biased raised panel hold down.
Figure 3 of Weaver is reproduced below:
i
Weaver, Fig. 3, showing cross-sectional view of spring biasing hold down
mechanism.
The Examiner’s finding that the spring is “connected to” the rod is not
adequately supported. Weaver describes at column 5, lines 24—25 that the
spring surrounds the rod. But the Examiner does not identify, and we do not
find, anything in the cited portions of Weaver that describes or suggests that
the spring is connected to the rod. See, e.g., Weaver, Fig. 3.
It also is not clear from Weaver’s disclosure that the second end of
spring 101 engages the clamp/sleeve. Rather, it appears that the bar 81
causes spring 101 to compress, causing the clamp/sleeve to contact the
washers while fully encasing the spring. See Appeal Br. 5, Reply Br. 4.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that spring 101 may
5
Appeal 2014-008681
Application 12/349,035
randomly contact clamp/sleeve 103, this does not mean that spring 101
engages clamp/sleeve 103. The Appellant’s Specification describes spring
19 as “connected” to block 17, which implies that the term “engage” means
more than mere random contact. See Spec. 8,11. 17—18. We do not find that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider Weaver’s
random contact as spring 101 engaging clamp/sleeve 103.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error on the part on the
Examiner in the rejection of independent claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2—A and 6—9,
dependent therefrom.
Each of claims 5 and 10 depends from independent claim 1. The
deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claim are not cured by
Huang. Thus, for the same reasons that we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6