Ex parte Risch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2001

08638903 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2001)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte JOEL V. RISCH
________________
Appeal No. 1998-3061
Application No. 08/638,903
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KRASS, LALL, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-13, all of the pending claims.
The invention pertains to a measuring device for a chain
saw. A non-expanding light beam is used in conjunction with
Appeal No. 1998-3061
Application No. 08/638,903
-2-
the chain saw in order to assist in the placement of the
cutting element a predetermined distance from the end of a
log. The light beam element, such as a laser, is mounted to
the chain saw at a preselected angle relative to the cutting
plane. When the beam of light is on the end of the log or
cutting piece and the cut is made normal to the log, each cut
section is of equal length.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A saw for cutting logs to preselected lengths,
comprising:
power-driven cutting means operable for cutting a log in
a cutting plane;
support means to which said cutting means are mounted; and
a light source secured to said support means, for
emitting a substantially non-expanding light beam at a
preselected angle relative to said cutting means.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Brock 4,319,404 Mar. 16, 1982
Chien 5,437,104 Aug. 01, 1995
Appeal No. 1998-3061
Application No. 08/638,903
-3-
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Brock in view of Chien.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The examiner combines Brock, dealing with a sight
alignment for a chain saw, with Chien, dealing with a laser
sight for a camera to help in a focusing function.
We agree with appellant that these two references deal
with nonanalogous arts and are, therefore, not properly
combinable. Chien, dealing with the camera arts, is clearly
not within appellant’s endeavor pertaining to cut measurement
devices for chain saws. Moreover, Chien is not even pertinent
to the problem with which appellant is concerned since a laser
used for focusing purposes in the camera arts has no clear
Appeal No. 1998-3061
Application No. 08/638,903
-4-
pertinence to the use of a laser for a cutting function.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would never have been expected
to look to Chien for suggestions on how to improve and/or
modify the alignment device of Brock.
Moreover, even if we assume, arguendo, that the
references could be combined, we fail to see how one would
have arrived at the claimed subject matter. Even if one would
have taken the suggestion of Chien to use a laser in Brock’s
system, where is the suggestion as to how to modify Brock in
any manner so as to employ the laser? The combined references
would not have suggested somehow replacing the sighting system
of Brock with a laser and then emitting the light beam at a
preselected angle relative to the cutting means.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1998-3061
Application No. 08/638,903
-5-
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
M. HENRY HEINES
TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER 8TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834