Ex parte Poloni

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 1999

08217657 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 25, 1994. 1
Claim 7 has been amended subsequent to final rejection.2
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ALFREDO POLONI
__________
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,6571
___________
HEARD: May 4, 1999
___________
Before FRANKFORT, McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Alfredo Poloni appeals from the final rejection of claims
2, 3 and 5 through 10, all of the clams pending in the
application. We reverse.2
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
The examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second3
paragraph, rejection which was set forth in the final
rejection (see the advisory action dated March 28, 1996, Paper
No. 12).
2
The invention relates to high speed flying shears for
cutting rolled stock issuing from a rolling mill stand. A
copy of the claims on appeal appears in the appendix to the
appellant’s main brief (Paper No. 15).
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Willard 3,478,654 Nov. 18, 1969
Elsner et al. (Elsner) 4,176,535 Dec. 4, 1979
Duri 4,644,773 Feb. 24, 1987
Poloni 4,966,060 Oct. 30, 1990
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:3
a) claims 2 and 5 through 8 as being unpatentable over
Poloni in view of Elsner;
b) claim 3 as being unpatentable over Poloni in view of
Elsner, and further in view of Willard; and
c) claims 9 and 10 as being unpatentable over Poloni in
view of Elsner, and further in view of Duri.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
3
briefs (Paper Nos. 15 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 16) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
Poloni, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
high speed flying shears 10 for cutting the head and tail
portions from the central body portion of rolled stock 18.
The shears includes two contra-rotatable knives 14 each
bearing a respective blade 17. The rolled stock advances to
the shears via a laterally movable guide 11 which shifts the
stock into and out of alignment with the blades. After
passing through the shearing region, the cut stock proceeds to
a conveyor channel 13 having an internal wall 27 and extension
partition 16 which divide the channel into two laterally
disposed sub-channels. One of the sub-channels receives the
cropped head and tail portions of the stock and guides them
ultimately to a scrap shears 36, while the other sub-channel
receives the main body portion of the stock and guides it
ultimately to an entraining means 135 leading to, for example,
a coiling plant. The conveyor channel 13 can be either
immovable or slightly movable in a lateral direction to ensure
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
4
that it is properly aligned with the stock.
In applying the Poloni reference to support the § 103
rejections on appeal, the examiner has found (see page 5 in
the answer) that Poloni’s conveyor channel 13 meets the
limitations in independent claim 7 requiring a two-channel
switch having a first channel for receiving and directing the
leading and trailing end segments of the rolled stock and a
second channel for receiving and directing the main body of
the rolled stock, with the two channels being superimposed at
least at their upstream ends on a plane perpendicular to the
axes of rotation of the blade-holder drums. As Figure 1 of
the Poloni reference clearly shows, however, the two sub-
channels defined by conveyor channel 13 are “superimposed” at
their upstream ends on a plane which is parallel, rather than
perpendicular, to the rotation axes of Poloni’s blade-holder
drums (knives 14). The alternative rationales advanced by the
examiner as to why such structure nonetheless responds to the
claim limitations in question (see pages 9 through 11 in the
answer) are manifestly unreasonable. This deficiency in
Poloni finds no cure in Elsner, Willard and/or Duri.
Thus, the prior art evidence relied upon by the examiner
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
5
does not justify a conclusion that the differences between the
subject matter recited in claim 7 and its dependent claims 2,
3, 5, 6 and 8 through 10 and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections of these claims.
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
6
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/caw
Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
7
Antonelli, Terry, Stout & Kraus
Suite 1800
1300 North Seventeenth Street
Arlington, VA 22209