Ex parte Wassenhoven

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 14, 1998

08315002 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 29, 1994. 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HEINZ-GEORGE WASSENHOVEN
____________
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,0021
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, MCQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to
6. Claim 7, the other claim in the application, has been
indicated as allowable, subject to being rewritten in
independent form.
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
3
The claims on appeal are drawn to an open-end spinning
device, and are reproduced in Appendix A of the appellant’s
brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Le Chatelier 3,668,854 Jun. 13,
1972 Stahlecker 3,927,516 Dec.
23, 1975
Miyamoto et al. (Miyamoto) 4,291,528 Sep. 29,
1981
The appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the following combinations of
references:
(1) Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6, Stahlecker in view of Miyamoto;
(2) Claims 2 and 5, Stahlecker in view of Miyamoto and
Le Chatelier.
Rejection (1)
The basis of this rejection is fully set forth by the
examiner on pages 4 to 6 of the answer.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the rejection
should not be sustained.
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
4
In reading claim 1 on Stahlecker, the examiner interprets
Stahlecker’s cover 5 as being the cover element recited in
part (c) of the claim, and swivel housing 4 as the cover
extension recited in part (d). According to the examiner, the
cover
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
5
extension 4 of Stahlecker is "replaceably mounted" to the
cover
element 5, as recited in part (d), because it can be replaced
by removing the pin on which it is pivotally connected to
cover element 5, together with the nuts and bolts around shaft
9 (answer, page 8). Nevertheless, whatever may be the merits
of this argument, we do not consider that Stahlecker’s element
5 can be read as the claimed "cover element," because claim 1
further requires that the cover element "defin[e] a guide
conduit for delivering fiber into the spinning rotor." Since
element 5 of Stahlecker is simply a cover for element 4, and
does not define a guide conduit, it cannot be interpreted as
appellant’s claimed "cover element." The only structure
disclosed by Stahlecker which does define a guide conduit for
the fiber, and therefore might be considered to correspond to
appellant’s "cover element," is swivel housing 4.
At the upper right hand part of Stahlecker’s swivel
housing 4, facing rotor 6 when swivel housing 4 is in the
closed (Fig. 1) position, is a structure which may possibly be
attached to the remainder of housing 4 by some type of
fastener (perhaps a rivet), and on which is mounted what the
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
6
examiner identifies as a yarn draw-off nozzle (answer page 5,
lines 1 and 2). If the swivel housing 4 is read as the "cover
element" of claim 1, as it must be in order to meet the
limitations of part (c), then the
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
7
noted structure at the upper right of housing 4 is the only
thing disclosed by Stahlecker which might conceivably be the
claimed "cover extension." However, Stahlecker is so devoid
of disclosure with regard to this structure that we do not
consider that the limitations recited in claim 1 concerning
the cover extension would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art therefrom. Stahlecker does not describe the
structure in the specification, and it is not even clear, for
example, whether or not it is removably attached to the
remainder of housing 4. Moreover, we find no disclosure in
Miyamoto which would supply the noted deficiencies in
Stahlecker. It appears, therefore, that the examiner’s
conclusion that the claimed structure would have been obvious
was based on hindsight gleaned from appellant’s disclosure,
rather than from the teachings of Stahlecker and Miyamoto.
Rejection (2)
Since the deficiencies in the prior art applied in
rejection (1) are not obviated by the additional reference, Le
Chatelier, applied in rejection (2), rejection (2) will
likewise not be sustained.
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
8
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 6 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SLD
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
9
Karl S. Sawyer, Jr.
Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P.
NationsBank Corporate Center, Suite 4200
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-4006
Shereece
Appeal No. 97-1975
Application No. 08/315,002
APJ CALVERT
APJ NASE
APJ MCQUADE
REVERSED
Prepared: September 21, 1999