Ex Parte Whited

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2004

09120778 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2004)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 37
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JEFFREY A. WHITED
____________
Appeal No. 2004-0209
Application No. 09/120,778
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 24, 25
and 27. Claims 1-5, 13-17 and 28-30 have been allowed, and claims 6-12, 18-23 and
26 have been withdrawn by the examiner as being directed to a non-elected invention.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2004-0209
Application No. 09/120,778
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a low friction rotary knife. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 25, which appears in
the appendix to the Brief.
The single prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting
the appealed claims is:
Bettcher 3,269,010 Aug. 30, 1966
Claims 24, 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bettcher.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 33) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 32) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 34) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appeal No. 2004-0209
Application No. 09/120,778
Page 3
The appellant’s invention relates to power operated rotary knives wherein a
rotatable annular blade is supported for rotation about a central axis by a blade support
structure. The appellant’s improvement comprises a blade that is supported at two
axially spaced apart bearing line segments which according to the appellant, stabilize
the blade both radially and axially as the knife operates, minimizes the generation of
heat caused by friction, and causes the blade to operate virtually vibration free
(specification, pages 3 and 4). As manifested in claim 24, this feature comprises a first
“line of bearing contact” disposed in a plane that is transverse to the axis of rotation of
the blade and a second “line of bearing contact” that is spaced from the first line in a
direction parallel to the axis of rotation, with the lines being formed at least in part by a
bead on one of the blade or the support which contacts spaced bearing surfaces
formed on the other of the blade and the support. It is clear from the explanation on
page 9 of the specification that the phrase “line of bearing support” should be
interpreted to mean that the engagement between the structure on the blade and that
on the support is, in fact, a line contact between the opposed elements such as that
illustrated in Figure 9 wherein the surface of bead 100 of semicircular cross-section
engages the frustoconical surfaces 70 and 72 at two spaced lines.
Appeal No. 2004-0209
Application No. 09/120,778
Page 4
1Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner has taken the position that the subject matter recited in claim 24 is
anticipated1 by Bettcher. In particular, the examiner finds that the annular blade
disclosed in Bettcher is supported by “a bead on the support structure (26) and lines of
bearing contact formed in part by spaced bearing surfaces formed on the blade (Figure
4)” (Answer, page 3). While the examiner attempts to explain why he finds that line
contact is shown in Bettcher (Answer, pages 5 and 6), we do not follow his reasoning
and do not agree with his conclusion. It is clear from the detailed structure shown in
Figure 4 that Bettcher supports the blade by means of three rectilinear bearing
surfaces on “flange 26," which is part of the blade support, which engage three
opposed rectilinear bearing surfaces in a circumferential groove defined by portions 65
and 66 of the blade. As such, the blade support system of Bettcher does not comprise
a pair of spaced “line[s] of contact” but spaced areas of contact. From our perspective,
the Bettcher system is exactly the type discussed on pages 1 and 2 of the appellants’
specification, over which the appellants consider their invention to be an improvement.
Since all of the subject matter set forth in claim 24 is not disclosed or taught by
Bettcher, the Section 102 rejection cannot be sustained. Nor, it follows, will we sustain
the like rejection of claim 25, which depends from claim 24.
Appeal No. 2004-0209
Application No. 09/120,778
Page 5
Independent claim 27 recites the same limitations regarding spaced lines of
bearing contact, and therefore we also will not sustain the rejection of this claim as
being anticipated by Bettcher.
CONCLUSION
The rejection is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.

NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA:pgc
Appeal No. 2004-0209
Application No. 09/120,778
Page 6
WATTS, HOFFMAN, FISHER & HEINKE
P.O. BOX 99839
CLEVELAND, OH 44199-0839