Ex Parte Zick et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813624391 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/624,391 09/21/2012 60840 7590 09/05/2018 MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MT) 100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE SUITE 3300 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jonathan A. Zick 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 066042-8375-US02 2944 EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): MKEIPDOCKET@MICHAELBEST.COM milwaukeeip@milwaukeetool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN A. ZICK and WONG WAI FOR Appeal 2017-011291 Application 13/624,391 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 21, 22, and 24--29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to a wire stripper." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 2, 5, 23, 30, and 31 were cancelled and claims 7-20 were withdrawn. See App. Br. 12-16. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2017-011291 Application 13/624,391 1. A wire stripper comprising: a housing defining a receptacle for receiving a battery; a motor disposed in the housing; a rotary head coupled to the motor for rotation about an axis, the rotary head defining a central aperture along the axis; a first blade and a second blade, the first and second blades coupled to the rotary head for rotation with the rotary head and about the axis, wherein the first and second blades extend at least partially into the central aperture while in a first position spaced away from insulation of a wire, and wherein the first and second blades extend at least partially into the central aperture while in a second position to engage insulation of the wire passing through the aperture; a pitch angle of the first blade defined relative to a plane that is generally perpendicular to the axis, wherein the pitch angle of the first blade facilitates automatic feeding of the wire into the rotary head along the axis during a cutting operation; and a cutting head coupled to the rotary head for supporting the first blade and the second blade, wherein manual rotation of the cutting head in a first direction moves the first and second blades from the first position toward the axis of the rotary head to the second position and manual rotation of the cutting head in a second direction opposite the first direction moves the first and second blades from the second position away from the axis of the rotary head to the first position, and wherein the motor rotates the first and second blades about the axis in the second position. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bieganski Wirth US 3,816,915 June 18, 1974 US 2010/0269637 Al Oct. 28, 2010 2 Appeal 2017-011291 Application 13/624,391 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 22 and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bieganski. Ans. 2-3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 21, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bieganski and Wirth. Ans. 3--4. ANALYSIS Appellants' main argument regarding both of the independent claims, 1 and 22, is that "Bieganski fails to teach or suggest that manual rotation of a cutting head moves any blades toward or away an axis." Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis added); see also id. at 2--4. Appellants allege this is so because "Bieganski teaches that actuating a lever 52 moves the blades 20" and as such "the operator is not manually rotating the cursor and bush 30 to move the blades inward." Id. The Specification provides no definition of the term manual and only uses the term, or derivations thereof, twice, neither of which is specifically used to describe the rotation of the cutting head. Spec. ,r,r 3, 37. The Specification, however, utilizes the term "user" throughout to describe how various actions occur. Given this utilization and the fact that some components of the claim are motor-driven, we ascertain that when using the term "manual," the claims are not directed to direct manual operation, as suggested by Appellants, but merely refer to unmotorized operation of certain components. Given this context, we agree with the Examiner that manual operation of a lever that then causes the claimed rotation through unmotorized interactions of components properly falls within the claimed manual operation as opposed to the rotation being motor- operated and that this construction is not overly broad. 3 Appeal 2017-011291 Application 13/624,391 Appellants also argue that Bieganski "fails to teach a motor rotating the first and second blades about the axis in the second position" and merely "teaches repeated actuation of trigger 54 to rotate the blades." Reply Br. 2, 4. As the Examiner points out, however, "Bieganski also discloses alternative structure including a motor to rotate the tube." Ans. 3, 5 (citing Bieganski col. 2, 11. 43, 44). We find this alternative structure, which Appellants fail to address, to be a sufficient teaching of motorized operation as claimed. Appellants also argue that the combination is improper because "Bieganski contradicts the fundamental operation of Wirth." App. Br. 9. As the Examiner states, however, "the pending rejections do not suggest modifying the Wirth reference with the teaching of Bieganski," but merely "suggest modifying the blade pitch angle of Bieganski in view of the teaching of Wirth." Ans. 5---6. We see no contradiction in utilizing Wirth's blade angle in Bieganski as suggested by the Examiner. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 21, 22, and 24--29. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation