Ex Parte Kunkee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2010

11187764 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DUANE KUNKEE, ERIC DELPH, and JOHN F. ENBERG, JR.
____________

Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and,
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-20. The Appellant appeals
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764

2

A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal relates to:

An automated and computerized technique . . . to generate a
modeled cutter ramp curve for a flange component. The
technique can be utilized in conjunction with any suitable CAD
system to render a cutter ramp curve on the modeled flange
component. The system obtains a selected amount of user
inputs, verifies that the user inputs are consistent with the
geometry of the flange component, and generates the cutter
ramp curve in response to the user inputs and the flange
geometry.

(Abstract.)

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 and 10, which further illustrate the invention, follow.

1. A computerized method for automated modeling of a cutter
ramp curve for a flange having a modeled geometry, said method
comprising:

obtaining a first set of user inputs associated with a cutter tool
to be used during machining of the flange;

obtaining a second set of user inputs associated with the
modeled geometry of the flange;

generating a cutter diameter parameter in response to said first
set of user inputs; and

producing a modeled cutter ramp curve based upon the modeled
geometry of the flange and said cutter diameter parameter.

Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764

3

10. A computerized method for automated modeling of a cutter
ramp curve for a flange having a modeled geometry, said method
comprising:

identifying a flange face object for the flange, a web face object
for the flange, and a corner blend geometry for a corner of the flange;

generating a cutter diameter parameter in response to at least one user
input;

verifying whether said cutter diameter parameter is consistent
with said corner blend geometry; and

producing a modeled cutter ramp curve that is dependent upon
said flange face object, said web face object, and said cutter diameter
parameter.

C. REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence:

Durney US 2005/0005670 A1 Jan. 13, 2005

D. REJECTIONS

Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by Durney.

Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764

4
II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner set forth a sufficient reason for a conclusion of
anticipation? Specifically, did the Examiner properly interpret the claimed
"cutter ramp curve" of independent claim 1 and "cutter diameter" for a
parameter of independent claim 10?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Durney does not disclose a "cutter ramp curve,"
as defined by Appellants in the Specification and the Examiner cannot
ignore the meaning of the words specifically used in the claims
(App. Br. 10-11). Appellants argue that Durney does not teach the claimed
“producing a modeled cutter ramp curve based upon the modeled geometry
of the flange and said cutter diameter parameter." (App. Br. 10-11).
Appellants state that:

Whether or not the Examiner believes that the term "cutter ramp
curve" has an ordinary and customary meaning, Appellants did
specifically and intentionally define that term. The term "cutter ramp
curve," is defined as: "The cutter ramp curve represents the location
where a cutter ramp tool would be tangent to the flange face wall."
Specification, page 2, paragraph 0006. Additionally, the term "cutter
ramp" is defined as: "A cutter ramp is a physical ramp or angled
feature, located at the intersection of a machined flange pocket, that is
Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764

5
created by the act of cutting an acute angle wall with a cylindrical
cutting tool." Specification, page 1 paragraph 0002. Figure 1 and
Figure 2 of the application show exactly what a "cutter ramp" is,
physically.

(App. Br. 11). We agree with Appellants' argument and find that the
Examiner's interpretation of the claimed cutter diameter parameter to be
unreasonable when read and properly interpreted in light of the disclosed
invention. The Examiner in the Answer at pages 7-8 maintains that
Appellants have not provided explicit definitions of several terms used while
defining the cutter ramp curve and cutter ramp and that no explicit
connection or disclosure between the terms cutter ramp curve and cutter
ramp has been given. We find the Examiner's requirements and reasoning to
go beyond reasonableness.

Appellants further argue that:

The Examiner asserts that, "the 'cutter diameter parameter' most
broadly interpreted also represents the diameter of the slit
within the material. The claim feature currently reads 'cutter
diameter parameter' and not 'cutter tool blade diameter
parameter.'" (See Final Office Action of December 12, 2007, p.
7.) This assertion is, on its face, erroneous. A "cutter diameter
parameter" clearly relates to a "cutter," which is a tool. A
parameter of the tool is not a diameter of a slit within a material
that is cut by the tool. The Examiner's assertion to the contrary
is, based on the plain English of the claimed term, simply
wrong. Therefore, Durney does not teach all of the features of
claim 1. Accordingly, Durney does not anticipate claim 1 or
any other claim in this grouping of claims.

(App. Br. 13). We agree with Appellants' argument and find that the
Examiner's interpretation of the claimed cutter diameter parameter to be
Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764

6
unreasonable when read and properly interpreted in light of the disclosed
invention. The Examiner maintains that:

Based on plain English of the term "cutter diameter parameter"
and understanding of cutter tool art, the aforementioned term
refers to a diameter parameter related to the cutter in some
fashion. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a "cutter
diameter parameter", especially in light of the fact that there is
no explicit definition disclosed in the specification and in light
of the fact that the claim limitation does not recite a "cutter tool
blade diameter parameter", is that the "cutter diameter
parameter" is the diameter of a slit within a material that is cut
by the tool which is related to the tool in some fashion fully
anticipated by Durney ([0038], Figure 3).

(Answer 9). We disagree with the Examiner's position and find that the
parameter is most reasonably associated with the tool rather than the
material and the diameter of the slit may vary depending on the material and
characteristics thereof rather than with characteristics of the tool.

Additionally, we note that the Examiner has cited to paragraphs
[0062], [0063], [0050], [0012], and [0100] which generally discuss user
inputs, but do not specifically address a first set of user inputs associated
with a "cutter tool to be used during machining of a flange." For this
additional reason, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.

With respect to independent claims 10 and 18, for the reasons
discussed above with respect to independent claim 1, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claims 10 and 18 and their respective dependent
claims. Appellants additionally argue that Durney does not teach a "web
face." (App. Br. 17). We agree with Appellants that Durney additionally
Appeal 2009-007929
Application 11/187,764

7
does not teach the "web face" as claimed and taught in Appellants' disclosed
invention, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and
18 for this additional reason.

V. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we find the Examiner has not shown
a proper initial showing of anticipation of claims 1-20.

VI. ORDER
We reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

erc

DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380