Ex parte Zaguroli et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 15, 1998

08326604 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 20, 1994.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 8
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES ZAGUROLI JR.,
JAMES M. WEITZ
and
JAMES L. DAUBERT
_____________
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,6041
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
A translation of this foreign language document prepared2
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is attached to this
2
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1 through 13, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to a linear guideway
arrangement for low friction movement of a structure (load)
supported thereon along a linear path. Claims 1 and 3 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
those claims, as they appear in the Appendix to appellants'
brief, is attached to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by
the examiner as evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject
matter are:
Neighbour 2,525,712 Oct. 10,
1950
Gallone et al. (Gallone) 4,623,201 Nov. 18,
1986
Isert 3,013,410 Oct. 8,
1991
(German Patent)2
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
decision.
3
Claims 1 through 3, 8 and 10 through 13 stand re-
jected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gallone.
Claims 4, 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Isert.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Gallone in view of Isert as applied
to claim 4 above, and further in view of Neighbour.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 7, mailed August 29, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the above-noted rejections and to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 6, filed June 12, 1996) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
4
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that claims 1, 2,
10, 11 and 12 on appeal will stand or fall together since
appellants have grouped these claims accordingly on page 4 of
their brief. Claims 3, 8 and 13 are said to form a separate
group, while claims "4, 5, 7 [sic] and 9" define another group
for consid-eration. Claim 7 is then said to be separately
argued from claim 6. Thus, we focus our attention on
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4 and 7 for
consideration in this appeal.
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal has included a careful assessment of appellants'
specification and claims, the applied prior art references,
and the respective positions advanced by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have reached
the conclusions which follow.
Looking at the grouping of claims 1, 2, 10, 11 and
12, we note that appellants have indicated on page 4 of their
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
5
brief that claim 1 sets forth "separate shafts mounted on a
support member to be held spaced apart but parallel . . . ."
However, appellants have not then pointed out or specified
supposed errors in the examiner's rejection with regard to
claim 1, or provided an explanation of how limitations in
claim 1 would render the claimed subject matter therein
unobvious over the applied prior art reference to Gallone.
The examiner has taken the position that the embodiment of the
guide (13) in Figure 5 of Gallone includes separate upper and
lower guide bars defined respectively by the upper enlarged
portion of the guide (13) and the lower enlarged portion of
the guide (13) on which the roller sets (20) ride. These
"guide bars" are mounted on and supported by the intermediate
portion of the guide (13) and are held spaced apart
but extending parallel to each other. A holder member defined
by elements (14, 15, 14) in Figure 5 of Gallone carries the
upper and lower sets of rollers mounted thereon so that they
are spaced apart to receive the upper and lower guide bars.
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
6
Appellants have simply not put forth any argument or
convincing line of reasoning as to why the examiner's reading

of claim 1 on the structure of Gallone Figure 5 is in error.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Gallone. Claims 2, 10, 11
and 12 which are grouped together with claim 1 will likewise
fall.
Turning to claim 3 and the claims which depend
therefrom, we note that appellants have argued (brief, pages
4-5) that the examiner's reading of the bottom wall of the
longitudinal grooves (25) of Gallone as the "series of guide
bar locator pieces" specified in claim 3 is unreasonable. We
agree with appellants' position. Given the particular
structure and function of the guide bar locator pieces set
forth in claim 3, we see no way that the bottom wall of the
longitudinal grooves (25) in Gallone Figure 5 can be read as
being such locator pieces. As a further point, we note that
the examiner's assertion (answer,
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
7
page 3) that the "attachment means of claim 3 is deemed
inherent in the structure [of Gallone]" is made totally
without support or explanation. Clearly the bottom walls of
the grooves (25) in Gallone do not provide means for "drawing
and holding" (emphasis added) said respective upper and lower
guide bars in abutment against the respective ends of locator
pieces as in appellants' claim 3.
As explained on page 5 of appellants' specification
and as seen in Figure 2, the locator pieces (74) have end
contours (76, 78) accurately cut therein so as to mate
precisely with the upper and lower guide bars (18, 20) and
thereby establish a precise spacing and alignment of the guide
bars. The upper and lower guide bars are drawn tightly
against the end contours (76, 78) of the locator pieces by
means of cap screws (80, 82) received through holes in the
upper and lower legs (70, 72) of the support channel (56) and
threadably engaging aligned bores in the upper and lower guide
bars (18, 20), respectively. No such structure exists in
Gallone. Moreover, having additionally reviewed the
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
8
references to Isert and Neighbour, we note the presence of no
such structure in those references either.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 3 or the claims which depend therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, we have sustained
the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2,
10, 11 and 12, but reversed the examiner's rejections of
claims 3 through 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision
of the examiner is accordingly affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
9
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
10
John R. Benefiel
280 Daines Street
Suite 100 B
Birmingham, MI 48009-6244
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
- A1 -
APPENDIX
1. A linear guideway arrangement comprising:
an elongated upper guide bar comprised of a shaft
having an upper guide surface extending along the length
thereof;
an elongated lower guide bar spaced below and
extending parallel to said upper guide bar, said lower guide
bar comprised of a separate shaft having a lower guide surface
extending along the length thereof;
an elongated support member supporting said separate
upper and lower guide bars held spaced apart but extending
parallel to each other;
an upper set of rollers including a pair of rollers
mounted for rotation about respective axes angled towards each
other;
said upper set rollers resting on and running along
said guide surface of said upper guide bar;
a lower set of rollers spaced below said upper set
of rollers including a pair of rollers mounted for rotation
about respective axes angled towards each other and running
along said lower guide surface of said lower guide bar; and,
a holder member having each of said upper and lower
roller sets mounted thereon spaced apart to receive said upper
and lower guide bars.
3. The guideway arrangement according to claim 1
further including a series of guide bar locator pieces
supported by said support member, each locator piece having
opposite ends, each end abutting a respective upper or lower
guide bar, and attachment means for drawing and holding said
respective upper and lower guide bars in abutment against said
Appeal No. 97-1086
Application 08/326,604
- A1 -
respective end thereof to be held spaced apart by the length
of said locator pieces.