Ex Parte PERTTIL¿

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12877291 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
12/877,291 09/08/2010 Marko PERTTIL/, R64797 1010.1 (0002.6) 2916
26158 7590 03/29/2017
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
SANDERS, HOWARD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDocketing@WCSR.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKO PERTTILA
Appeal 2015-004199
Application 12/877,291
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1—6. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a method for the optimal
alignment of veneer sheets at a lay-up station, wherein the veneer sheets are
laid up for a veneer assembly composed of veneer sheets glued on top of
Appeal 2015-004199
Application 12/877,291
each other.” Spec. 1:11—13. Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for the optimal positioning of veneer sheets at
a layup station, wherein the veneer sheets are attached for a
veneer assembly composed of veneer sheets glued on top of
each other, wherein the method comprises:
determining an optimal position for each veneer sheet in
the veneer assembly;
determining perpendicularly-arranged virtual alignment
edges individually for each veneer sheet, with respect to the
optimal position thereof, at least the virtual alignment edges
being determined separately of the real veneer edges of each
individual veneer sheet, without the virtual alignment edges
extending outwardly of the respective real veneer edges; and
positioning the veneer sheets with respect to each other
such that the veneer sheets are aligned in accordance with the
respective virtual alignment edges thereof, during lay-up of the
veneer sheets to form the veneer assembly.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Bemath US 4,700,758 Oct. 20, 1987
Oppeneer US 4,794,963 Jan. 3, 1989
Cremona US 5,201,258 April 13, 1993
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bemath and Cremona.
Claims 4—6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bemath, Cremona, and Oppeneer.
2
Appeal 2015-004199
Application 12/877,291
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1—5
as unpatentable over Bernath and Cremona
Sole independent claim 1 includes limitations directed to determining
a position “for each veneer sheet in the veneer assembly.” Claim 1 also
recites determining virtual alignment edges “individually for each veneer
sheet.” Claim 1 further recites that “the veneer sheets [are positioned] with
respect to each other” so that “during lay-up,” “the veneer sheets [] form the
veneer assembly.”1
The Examiner relies on Bernath for these limitations.2 Final Act. 2—3.
Appellant discusses the teachings of Bernath concluding that Bernath “is
particularly directed to a device for trimming opposing sides of a veneer
stack (i.e., an as-formed stack formed from individual veneer sheets) [] as a
whole (i.e., for the entire stack of veneer sheets).”3 App. Br. 8. As such,
Appellant addresses each of the limitations discussed supra and contends
that Bernath fails to teach them. App. Br. 15—17; Reply Br. 2—5. In
summary, Appellant contends, “the Office Action ignores the particular
1 Appellant’s Specification also distinguishes between the individual sheets
comprising the assembly, and the completed veneer assembly itself. See
Spec. 1:11—13 (“wherein the veneer sheets are laid up for a veneer assembly
composed of veneer sheets glued on top of each other”); see also, e.g., Spec.
1:16—20; 2:9—10 (“and laying up the veneer sheets, as positioned in
accordance with the virtual alignment edges, for a veneer assembly”);
2:19—20 (“[o]nce a veneer assembly has been composed of the veneers”).
2 The Examiner relies on Cremona for teaching alignment edges that are
“perpendicularly-arranged” and provides a reason to combine Bernath and
Cremona. Final Act. 3^4.
3 Appellant comes to a similar (albeit unneeded) conclusion regarding the
teachings of Cremona as well. App. Br. 10.
3
Appeal 2015-004199
Application 12/877,291
recitations of Claim 1 directed to a method of laying-up individual veneer
sheets to form a veneer assembly.” App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 2.
There is merit to Appellant’s contentions. The Title and Abstract
portions of Bemath are both directed to a veneer-trimming device as
contrasted with laying-up or forming the workpiece beforehand by
addressing each veneer sheet of the assembly individually. Bemath’s
Background portion states, “[t]he present invention is directed to a device
for parallel trimming of the opposite sides of veneer sheets and stacks of
veneer sheets.”4 Bemath 1:6—8. Bemath’s Summary portion further states
that it is an object of the invention “to provide a cutting apparatus.” Bemath
1:44. The Examiner’s reason to combine also references the workpiece
being “positioned for trimming.” Final Act. 4. In contrast and as indicated
supra, independent claim 1 is directed to the arrangement of individual
sheets prior to assembly, and not to the final fabrication being trimmed or
cut after being assembled.
The Examiner does not explain how a trimming operation of an
already completed assembly would render the recited method of initially
forming the assembly obvious.5 In other words, the Examiner does not
explain how Bemath teaches that the laying-up of the veneer assembly on a
4 Bemath addresses “a veneer stack 10 made up of a number of individual
veneer sheets 11 to be trimmed.” Bemath 2:38—39; see also Reply Br. 2.
5 The Examiner states that, regarding the stacking of the cut veneer after it
has been trimmed, “[i]t is the Examiner’s position that this sort of act or
method of forming a stack is entirely obvious to those of ordinary skill in the
art.” Ans. 5. The Examiner proffers no other explanation as to why such
stacking (based on actual edges) renders the claimed positioning of the
individual veneers based on their virtual edges (for lay-up and assembly)
obvious.
4
Appeal 2015-004199
Application 12/877,291
sheet-by-sheet basis as claimed would have been obvious. Instead, “[t]he
Examiner maintains that according to the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claimed limitation in view of the disclosure as a whole, the cited
portion of Bernath teaches the limitation at issue.” Ans. 2. However, as
indicated supra, both claim 1 and Appellant’s specification distinguish
between individual veneer sheets and the completed veneer assembly,
whereas the Examiner’s “broadest reasonable interpretation” co-mingles
and/or equates the two. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that
“Appellant is arguing for too narrow a reading of the claimed method.” Ans.
4. Instead, we are of the opinion that Appellant is simply arguing for a
reading that is consistent with that which is claimed, and also that which is
described in the Specification.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5 as unpatentable over Bernath and
Cremona.
The rejection of claims 4 6
as unpatentable over Bernath, Cremona, and Oppeneer
Claims 4—6 each depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
claim 1. In accordance with this rejection, the Examiner relies on Oppeneer
for teaching “trimming boards consistently with at least one virtual
alignment edge.” Final Act. 4. Oppeneer is not relied on for curing the
defect discussed above regarding the combination of Bernath and Cremona.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4—6 as
being unpatentable over Bernath, Cremona, and Oppeneer.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6 are reversed.
5
Appeal 2015-004199
Application 12/877,291
REVERSED
6