08224588 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 2000)

Ex parte Sakamoto

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 25, 2000

08224588 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 2000)

1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte HIROSHI SAKAMOTO _____________ Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 ______________ HEARD: OCTOBER 10, 2000 _______________ Before KIMLIN, PAK, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s refusal to allow claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 13 which are all of the claims pending in the application. Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 2 Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 3 Claims 1 and 8 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and read as follows: 1. An automatic web material connecting apparatus comprising: a pair of blocks arranged so as to be able to move relatively and be pressed against each other in a direction to cross a feed path for a first web material and a feed path for a second web material; retaining means for retaining the first and second web materials on respective opposite faces of said pair of blocks; cutting means, associated with said pair of blocks, for cutting a desired one of the first and second web materials; and driving means for relatively moving said pair of blocks, whereby the desired web material is cut by said cutting means while said pair of blocks are moving relative to each other; wherein said cutting means essentially consists of, a rotating body rockable between the feed paths for the first and second web materials on an upper- course side of said pair of blocks, first and second knives fixed individually to said pair of blocks, a single third knife fixed to said rotating body, and actuator means for rotating said rotating body between a first rotational position in which said third knife faces said first knife and a second rotational position in which said third knife faces Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 4 said second knife, said third knife having a cutting edge which is directed to different radial directions as said rotating body rotates between the first and second rotational positions, wherein the desired web material is cut by said third knife and one of said first and second knives selected depending on the rotational position of said rotating body. 8. An automatic web material connecting apparatus comprising: a pair of blocks arranged so as to be able to move relatively and be pressed against each other in a direction to cross a feed path for a first web material and a feed path for a second web material; retaining means for retaining the first and second web materials on respective opposite faces of said pair of blocks; cutting means, associated with said pair of blocks, for cutting a desired one of the first and second web materials; and driving means for relatively moving said pair of blocks, whereby the desired web material is cut by said cutting means while said pair of blocks are moving relative to each other; wherein said cutting means includes, a rotating body rockable between the feed paths for the first and second web materials on an upper- course side of said pair of blocks, Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 5 first and second knives fixed individually to said pair of blocks, Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 6 a single third knife fixed to said rotating body, and actuator means for rotating said rotating body between a first rotational position in which said third knife faces said first knife and a second rotational position in which said third knife faces said second knife, said third knife having a cutting edge which is directed to different radial directions as said rotating body rotates between the first and second rotational positions, wherein the desired web material is cut by said third knife and one of said first and second knives selected depending on the rotational position of said rotating body. In support of his rejections, the examiner relies on the following prior art: Heitmann 4,010,911 Mar. 8, 1977 Ryan et al. (Ryan) 4,157,934 Jan. 12, 1979 Breuers et al. (Breuers) 4,492,138 Jan. 8, 1985 Dickey 5,064,488 Nov. 12, 1991 Bottomley 775,111 May 22, 1957 (Published British Patent Application) Claims 1 through 3, 6, 8 through 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Dickey, Heitmann and Breuers. Claims 7 and Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 7 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Dickey, Heitmann, Breuers and Ryan. Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Dickey, Heitmann, Breuers and Bottomley. We have carefully evaluated the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and appellant in support of their respective positions. This evaluation leads us to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded. For the reasons well articulated by appellant at pages 9 through 16 of his Brief, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. We only add that the examiner has not properly given weight to the recited means-plus-function elements, particularly the recited “actuator means,” in claims 1 and 8 consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. See Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 8 174 F.3d 1308, 1319, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (when a claim does not further define its means-plus-function element with structural limitations sufficient to carry out the recited function, the means-plus-function element is interpreted as the corresponding structure in the specification or the equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6); In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (when the terms in the claims are written in a “means-plus-function” format, they are interpreted as the corresponding structure described in the specification or the equivalents thereof). Accordingly, we reverse each of the foregoing § 103 rejections. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). Appeal No. 1997-1369 Application No. 08/224,588 9 REVERSED EDWARD C. KIMLIN ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT CHUNG K. PAK ) APPEALS AND Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) Administrative Patent Judge ) CKP:hh Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP P.O. Box 747 Falls Church, VA 22040-0747