Ex Parte Myers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2011

10987838 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT ANDREW MYERS
____________

Appeal 2009-010355
Application 10/987,838
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010355
Application 10/987,838

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Andrew Myers (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4. Claims 5-20 have
been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a scissor cutter, such as for
use in a paper tape receipt printer, that is adjustable to create either a full or a
partial cut across paper tape. Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A scissor cutter comprising:
a moving blade having a fixed range of motion; and
an adjustable stationary blade, wherein the adjustable
stationary blade is moveable lateral relative to the moving blade
to allow a paper tape to be selectively fully or partially cut.
THE REJECTION
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,699,609 to Komaransky,
issued October 13, 1987.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Komaransky discloses an adjustable
stationary blade that is moveable laterally relative to a moving blade to
allow a paper tape to be selectively fully or partially cut as called for in
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-010355
Application 10/987,838

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 calls for a scissor cutter comprised of a moving
blade and an adjustable stationary blade that is adjustable laterally relative to
the moving blade to create either a full or partial cut across paper tape.
Appellant’s Specification describes that the adjustable stationary blade does
not move during cutting operations. Spec. 5, para. [0014]. Appellant’s
Specification further describes that the adjustable stationary blade is moved
laterally (in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the blade) to
enable either a partial cut (Figure 1a) or a full cut (Figure 2a) of a paper roll.
Spec. 3, para. [0006]; 6, para. [0021].
We interpret claim 1 to call for an adjustable stationary blade that
(1) does not move during cutting operations, and (2) may be adjusted
relative to the moving blade in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of
the stationary blade to enable either a partial or a full cut of a paper tape.
The Examiner found that Komaransky’s linear cutting blade 70
corresponds to the adjustable stationary blade of independent claim 1.
Ans. 3. We cannot agree with this finding.
Komaransky’s linear cutting blade 70 is attached to inverted U-shaped
bracket 72 by elongated openings 74, which permit linear cutting blade 70 to
be adjusted with respect to bracket support 72 for optimum engagement with
pivotal cutter blade 48. Komaransky, col. 6, ll. 11-17; figs. 5, 7. The
elongated openings 74 permit adjustment in a direction perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of linear cutting blade 70. Because Komaransky’s linear
cutting blade 70 does not adjust laterally (in a direction parallel to its
Appeal 2009-010355
Application 10/987,838

4
longitudinal axis), it cannot be an adjustable stationary blade as called for in
independent claim 1.
The Examiner alternately found that Komaransky’s pivotal cutter
blade 48 corresponds to the adjustable stationary blade of independent
claim 1. Ans. 3. We also cannot agree with this finding.
Komaransky discloses that electric solenoid 58 causes pivotal cutter
blade 48 to pivot upwardly during cutting operations. Komaransky, col. 5,
ll. 49-68; fig. 5 (repositioned cutter blade 48 indicated by dashed lines).
Thus, Komaransky’s pivotal cutter blade 48 moves during cutting
operations, and cannot be an adjustable stationary blade as called for in
independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Komaransky does not disclose an adjustable stationary blade that is
moveable laterally relative to a moving blade to allow a paper tape to be
selectively fully or partially cut as called for in independent claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

nlk

DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY.
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN TX 78759