Ex Parte Welsh et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201311408401 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/408,401 04/21/2006 Robert P. Welsh TN-09912 9713 28268 7590 06/28/2013 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION 701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199 TOWSON, MD 21286 EXAMINER PATEL, BHARAT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ROBERT P. WELSH, KATHY E. DIPASQUALE, DANIEL N. LOPANO, JOHN E. BUCK, CARL F. MERHAR III, YUNG HO CHANG, and NICHOLAS E. ACHTERBERG ____________________ Appeal 2011-006337 Application 11/408,401 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006337 Application 11/408,401 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 11-13. Claims 2-10 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a table saw mounted on a base assembly. Spec., para. [0003]. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A table saw comprising: a base assembly; a table assembly supported by the base assembly, the table assembly defining a workpiece support plane; and a saw assembly supported by at least one of the table assembly and the base assembly, the saw assembly including a saw blade extending through the table assembly; wherein the base assembly comprises a first panel, and a first tube directly connected to the table assembly, the first tube having a lower portion being substantially parallel to and below the workpiece support plane, and an upper portion being directly connected to and adjacent to the table assembly, the first panel being below the table assembly and attached to the first tube at a point below the upper portion. REFERENCES Yoder Braddock US 5,018,563 US 5,778,953 May 28, 1991 Jul. 14, 1998 Appeal 2011-006337 Application 11/408,401 3 REJECTION Claims 1 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Braddock and Yoder. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Braddock discloses the structure recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3, citing, e.g., Braddock, fig. 1), except for the claimed first panel and first tube, which the Examiner found in Yoder (Id., citing Yoder, col. 4, ll. 43-54; fig. 1). The Examiner specifically found that Yoder’s sheet metal floor 32 corresponds to the claimed first panel, and that bars 20, 21, and 22– which the Examiner found to be “directly connected” to Yoder’s table assembly 50 -- correspond to the claimed first tube. Ans. 3 (citing Yoder, col. 3, ll. 43-54; fig. 1). The Examiner then concluded that [i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide Braddock’s tube and table assembly arrangement with direct connection arrangement, as taught by Yoder, in order to bring in one single trip to the work site, all of a wide range of tools and materials needed to perform a job. Ans. 4 (citing Yoder, col. 1, ll. 35-38; fig.1). Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale for the combination. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3. We agree. The Examiner’s reason for combining Braddock with Yoder lacks a rational underpinning. First, the meaning of “Braddock’s tube and table arrangement” – which the Examiner proposes providing with Yoder’s “direct connection arrangement” – is unclear, given that the Examiner found that Braddock fails to teach the claimed first tube. See Ans. 3. Second, the Examiner did not adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art Appeal 2011-006337 Application 11/408,401 4 would have combined Braddock’s and Yoder’s teachings (particularly bars 20, 21, and 22), or how such a combination would further the goal of permitting a worker to bring all necessary tools to the worksite in one trip. For example, while it might make sense to add Yoder’s sheet metal floor 32 to Braddock’s table-saw assembly to increase its storage capacity, it is much less clear why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Yoder’s bars 20, 21, and 22 to Braddock’s table-saw assembly, or how doing so would have furthered the goal of bringing more tools to a worksite. Because the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining Braddock and Yoder lacks a rational underpinning, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 11-13, as obvious over Braddock and Yoder. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11-13 is reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation