10270087 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2010)

Ex Parte Pflager et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 21, 2010

10270087 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM WOOD PFLAGER, JOEL KYM METZLER, and TIMOTHY WILLIAM HYKES ____________ Appeal 2009-006462 Application 10/270,087 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Decided: June 21, 2010 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, KEN B. BARRETT, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-006642 Application 10/270,087 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE William Wood Pflager et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2006) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 29, 31, and 33-39. Claims 8-10, 13, 14, 17-28, 32, 40, and 41 are objected to by the Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and otherwise indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 2, 6, and 30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2006). THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus mounted to a machine tool for positioning a device near a workpiece that travels along an orbital path such that the motion of the device mimics the motion of the workpiece during the machining cycle. Spec. 9, l. 17 through Spec. 10, l. 1. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. An apparatus mounted to a machine having a spindle, for positioning a device near a workpiece during a machining operation, said workpiece being movable relative to a machining tool during said machining operation, wherein at least a portion of said workpiece moves along an arcuate path relative to said machining tool, said apparatus comprising: an arm coupled to said spindle of said machine and movable relative thereto to mimic movement of said at least a portion of said workpiece relative to said machining tool, said arm having a portion adapted for contact with a Appeal 2009-006642 Application 10/270,087 3 machined portion of said workpiece during said machining operation, wherein said machining tool rotates about an axis, wherein said axis defines a center of said arcuate path and wherein said arm rotatably oscillates about said axis such that said arm rises and falls with the workpiece along the arcuate path during said machining operation. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Esteve US 6,088,924 Jul. 18, 2000 Iwabuchi US 6,454,636 B1 Sep. 24, 2002 Hiramoto US 6,585,564 B1 Jul. 1, 2003 Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) Spec. 7, l. 51 Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 29, 31, and 33-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA or Esteve and Hiramoto or Iwabuchi.2 OPINION Each of independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 29 requires that the arm coupled to the spindle of the machine tool rotatably oscillate about an axis that is both the machine tool’s rotational axis and the center of the arcuate path traveled by the workpiece. See App. Br., Claims Appendix. 1 When referring to AAPA the Examiner refers to the teachings of Dall’Aglio (U.S. Patent No. 6,067,721, issued May 30, 2000) (hereafter “Dall’Aglio”). 2 Although the Examiner has included claim 30 in this rejection, we note that claim 30 was cancelled by Appellants in the Amendment filed Oct. 30, 2006. Accordingly, claim 30 is not part of the instant appeal. Appeal 2009-006642 Application 10/270,087 4 We agree with the Examiner that both AAPA and Esteve disclose all the claim limitations except for the arm being rotatable about an axis that is both the machine tool’s rotational axis and the center of the arcuate path traveled by the workpiece. Ans. 4. We further agree with the Examiner that each of Hiramoto and Iwabuchi discloses an apparatus mounted on a machine tool for positioning a device (20, as per Hiramoto, and 37, as per Iwabuchi) near a workpiece including an arm (18, as per Hiramoto, and 21, as per Iwabuchi) rotatable about a tool axis. Id. See also, Hiramoto, fig. 1 and Iwabuchi, fig. 3. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of AAPA by replacing the multi-arm arrangement of AAPA with the apparatus of either Hiramoto or Iwabuchi “as a simple, efficient, and economical means of positioning the device.” Id. Alternatively, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Esteve “by placing the arm in a co-linear arrangement to the machine as taught by Hiramoto et al. or Iwabuchi as an efficient and economical means of positioning the device.” Ans. 5. We find that the multi-arm arrangement 9, 12 of AAPA rotates about first and second axis 7, 11 such that it allows the device 20 to have the same motion, namely, a reciprocating motion, as the orbital motion of crankpin 18 during machining. See Dall’Aglio, col. 3, l. 57 through col. 4, l. 8; col. 4, ll. 46-50; and fig. 1. Similarly, it is our finding that Esteve discloses a device 10 including measuring head 7, holder 18, 22, frame 12 (arm), and multiple pivot axes 13, 16, 24 that allow device 10 to follow the orbital motion of crank pin 2 during machining. Esteve, Abstract; col. 3, ll. 17-22; and fig. 1. Hence, we find that the positioning devices 20 and 37 of Hiramoto and Appeal 2009-006642 Application 10/270,087 5 Iwabuchi, respectively, are set in a predetermined position during machining. See also Reply Br. 5-6. In other words, the positioning devices 20 and 37 of Hiramoto and Iwabuchi are fixed and non-oscillating during machining of the workpiece. As such, if the arm 18 of Hiramoto or the arm 21 of Iwabuchi replaces the multi-arm arrangement of AAPA, as proposed by the Examiner, we do not see how the device of AAPA and Hiramoto or Iwabuchi will rotatably oscillate about the machine tool’s rotational axis, as required by each of independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 29. Rather, the device of AAPA and Hiramoto or Iwabuchi will be set in a predetermined position during machining. Similarly, if the arm 12 of Esteve were to be positioned in a co- linear arrangement like the arm 18 of Hiramoto or the arm 21 of Iwabuchi, as proposed by the Examiner, we do not see how the device of Esteve and Hiramoto or Iwabuchi will rotatably oscillate about the machine tool’s rotational axis, as required by each of independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 29. Rather, the device of Esteve and Hiramoto or Iwabuchi will be set in a predetermined position during machining. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the rejections of independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 29 and dependent claims 3-5, 7, 11, 16, 31, and 33-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA or Esteve and Hiramoto or Iwabuchi cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious). Appeal 2009-006642 Application 10/270,087 6 SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 29, 31, and 33-39 is reversed. REVERSED Klh REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P O BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390