Ex parte SAKAMOTO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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