HUSQVARNA AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

14880569 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

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.
14/880,569 10/12/2015 Anthony Baratta 738004/10058/P2508US05 4772
148434 7590 06/30/2020
Burr Forman McNair
Husqvarna
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
EXAMINER
HALL JR, TYRONE VINCENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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):
mcnairip@mcnair.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY BARATTA, PETER ZETTERLIND, and
ANDREAS JÖNSSON
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Husqvarna AB.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a chainsaw usable for cutting
concrete.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is the sole pending
independent claim.
1. An interchangeable concrete cutting chainsaw cutting
assembly adapted for installation upon a drive assembly in
exchange for a removed, different type cutting head assembly,
said chainsaw cutting assembly comprising:
a housing having fasteners that releasably attach said
housing to a drive assembly in an installed configuration;
a ratio transmission comprising a plurality of
interconnected rotatable members, each rotatable member
having a mounting shaft positioned at a fixed location on said
housing by a bearing assembly;
said plurality of rotatable members comprising a round,
disk-shaped driven member and a round, disk-shaped cutting
chain drive member, said driven member having a circumference
at least twice as long as a circumference of the cutting chain
drive member;
said driven member having a receiver that interconnects
with a driveshaft of the drive assembly in the installed
configuration whereby said driven member is rotated by the drive
assembly;
a chain bar attached to said housing;
a drive sprocket and nose sprocket, at least one of which
is rotatably mounted on said chain bar and a cutting chain
suspended on said drive sprocket and nose sprocket for
circulation about said chain bar; and
said cutting chain drive member operatively
interconnected with said drive sprocket whereby rotation of said
cutting chain drive member rotates said drive sprocket.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dunn US 855,237 May 28, 1907
Michie US 2,776,575 Jan. 1, 1957
McNulty US 3,545,422 Dec. 8, 1970
Weisner US 4,181,115 Jan. 1, 1980
Marshall Brain, How Gear Ratios Work, HowStuffWorks,
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/gears.htm/printable2 (hereinafter “Gear
Ratios”)3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over McNulty and Gear Ratios.
II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Michie.
III. Claims 3, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Dunn.
IV. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Weisner.

2 The only date displayed on this reference (September 28, 2018) appears to
be the date the Examiner printed it. Appellant does not dispute that this
reference qualifies as prior art. See Appeal Br.
3 The Examiner refers to this reference as either “HowStuffWorks” or
“HowStuffWorks Gear Ratios,” and Appellant refers to it as “Gear Ratios.”
See Non-Final Act.; Ans.; Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

4
OPINION
Rejection I–McNulty and Gear Ratios
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8–10, and 12–17
The Examiner finds that McNulty discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 1, including a ratio transmission (reduction gear and
oscillating gear housing 11) having a drive member and a driven member,
but does not disclose that driven member has a circumference at least twice
as long as a circumference of the drive member. Non-Final Act. 3. To
address this deficiency, the Examiner finds Gear Ratios “teaches wherein
gear ratios are generally used for different reasons: to reverse direction of
rotation, increase or decrease speed of rotation, to move rotational motion to
a different axis or to keep rotation of two axis synchronized.” Id. The
Examiner also finds Gear Ratios teaches a gear ratio of 2:1. Id. at 3–4. The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify the reduction
gears of McNulty to a ratio of 2:1 or having a circumference of the driven
gear being twice as long as the circumference as the drive gear as taught by
[Gear Ratios] in order to optimize the gear reduction for the necessary
application.” Id. at 4.
Appellant argues (i) “McNulty does not disclose anything related to
the structure of the reduction gears (i.e., the alleged driven member and
cutting chain drive member), much less anything related to the
circumference of the alleged driven member in relation to the alleged cutting
chain drive member” and (ii) “similarly to McNulty, Gear Ratios also does
not disclose anything related to the structure of the driven member in
relation to the structure of the cutting chain drive member.” Appeal Br. 5.
According to Appellant, “Gear Ratios shows only some disembodied gears
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

5
but neither Gear Ratios nor the Examiner has provided any context on how
those gears relate to the claimed drive member and cutting chain drive
member.” Id.
In response, the Examiner notes that McNulty discloses that gear
housing 11 includes reduction gears, and, that Gear Ratios teaches a 2:1 gear
ratio as well as that gear ratios are used for various reasons, including to
reduce speed of rotation. See Ans. 12–13. In light of these teachings, the
Examiner reiterates that providing the claimed gear ratio, in which the
driven member has a circumference at least twice as long as a circumference
of the cutting chain drive member, would have been an obvious matter of
optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art. See id.
In reply, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s response “seems to
suggest that Gear Ratios actually teaches a driven member having a diameter
twice that of a drive member. However, this is not the case. Neither Gear
Ratios nor McNulty disclose a driven member and a drive member, much
less the structural relationship between the two.” Reply Br. 3. According to
Appellant, “the Examiner has provided support only for that one gear may
be larger than another gear but no support for the feature of the driven
member having a circumference at least twice as long as a circumference of
the cutting chain drive member.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument for the following reasons.
First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that McNulty’s
reduction gear and oscillating gear housing 11 includes a drive gear and at
least one driven gear based on the disclosed function of this component.
“Attached to the motor housing 10 is a reduction gear and oscillating gear
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

6
housing 11 retaining reductions gears for reducing the speed of the motor.”
McNulty, 2:38–40.
Next, although the Examiner finds that Gear Ratios discloses a
specific gear ratio of 2:1, the Examiner does not propose merely lifting this
teaching from Gear Ratios and implementing it in McNulty’s reduction gear
and oscillating gear housing 11. In this regard, Gear Ratios teaches that
gears are used to increase or reduce rotational speed and how this is done via
selection of gear ratios. See Gear Ratios 1–2. The Examiner’s stated
rejection relies on optimization, based on the general teachings in Gear
Ratios, to meet the requirement in claim 1 that the circumference of the
driven member is at least twice as long as a circumference of the cutting
chain drive member. See Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 13. Appellant does not
address whether it would have been obvious to optimize the ratio of the
reduction gears disclosed by McNulty such that the driven member would
have a circumference at least twice as long as a circumference of the cutting
chain drive member. Appeal Br. 4–6. Accordingly, Appellant does not
apprise us of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 5, 8–10, and 12–17,
for which Appellant makes no separate arguments. See Appeal Br.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “said disk-shaped
driven member is separated by clear space apart from said disk-shaped
cutting chain drive member.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Gear Ratios discloses such spacing between its
gears and contends that “the modified McNulty teaches wherein said disk-
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

7
shaped driven member is separated by clear space apart from said disk-
shaped cutting chain drive member.” Non-Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues,
[t]he Examiner seems to allege that by showing two disembodied
gears being spaced apart then the subject matter is taught in the
prior art. However, none of the cited references actually disclose
a driven member or a drive member much less the structure of
the driven member in relation to the drive member and the space
between.
Appeal Br. 7.
In reply, the Examiner finds that one of the gears disclosed by Gear
Ratios is a driven gear, and one is a drive gear. Ans. 13. The Examiner
reasons, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time of the invention, to modify gear reduction as taught by McNulty to
have the driven gear and drive gear to be spaced apart as claimed as an
alternative for driving a reduction gear.” Id.
The Examiner has the better position because, as discussed above, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand McNulty’s reduction
gear and oscillating gear housing 11 to include a driven gear and a drive gear
based on McNulty’s description of this housing. Further, we agree with the
Examiner that Gear Ratios discloses a driven gear and a drive gear. Page 14
of the Examiner’s Answer includes a drawing from Gear Ratios, and we
reproduce this drawing below.
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

8

This drawing appears on page 8 of Gear Ratios and depicts two gears
operably coupled together via a toothed belt. After providing this drawing,
Gear Ratios states:
[t]he advantages of chains and belts are light weight, the ability
to separate the two gears by some distance, and the ability to
connect many gears together on the same chain or belt. For
example, in a car engine, the same toothed belt might engage the
crankshaft, two camshafts and the alternator. If you had to use
gears in place of the belt, it would be a lot harder!
Gear Ratios 8 (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the crankshaft drives such a gear system and a driven gear is,
therefore, present. We agree with the Examiner that the use of the gears and
a belt would have been an obvious alternative arrangement of the reduction
gears used by McNulty inasmuch as doing so would have been the simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over McNulty and Gear
Ratios.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites, “said ratio transmission
consist[s] of two rotatable members comprising said round, disk-shaped
driven member and said round, disk-shaped cutting chain drive member and
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

9
wherein said disk-shaped driven member is radially spaced apart from said
disk-shaped cutting chain drive member.” Appeal Br. 14–15 (Claims App.).
Appellant makes arguments similar to those made in support of the
patentability of claim 7, stating, “none of the cited references actually
disclose a driven member or a drive member much less the structure of the
driven member in relation to the drive member and the space between.”
Appeal Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner finds that Gear Ratios discloses a driven
gear and a drive gear as well as two gears spaced apart where one of the
gears is driven by the other. Ans. 14. The Examiner reasons, “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
to modify gear reduction as taught by McNulty to have the driven gear and
drive gear to be spaced apart as claimed as an alternative for driving a
reduction gear.” Id.
For the same reasons discussed above regarding the rejection of claim
7, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over McNulty and
Gear Ratios.
Rejection II—McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Michie
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and Appellant does not make
arguments for the patentability of claim 6 aside from those discussed above
regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8–9. Accordingly, for the same reasons,
we sustain the rejection of claim 6.

Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

10
Rejection III—McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Dunn
Claims 3 and 4
Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of claims 3
and 4 aside from those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9.
Accordingly, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and
4.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from dependent claim 17 and recites, “a tension
adjustment assembly including two tension adjusting mechanisms.” Appeal
Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that the combination of McNulty and Gear Ratios
fails to disclose this element and relies on Dunn to remedy this deficiency.
Non-Final Act. 10–11. Specifically, the Examiner finds Dunn discloses “a
belt tensioning device (P) for engaging a belt (Fig. 1) for providing tension
on the belt in order to increase belt contact with the pulley of the drive
member.” Non-Final Act. 11. First, the Examiner reasons, it would have
been obvious “to modify the apparatus of the modified McNulty to include a
belt tensioning mechanism as taught by Dunn in order to provide an increase
in belt contact between the cutting chain drive member, the driven member
and the transmission.” Id. Next, the Examiner reasons, it would have been
obvious “to add additional tension adjustment mechanisms in order to
increase the tightness of the looped mechanism more.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to articulate a reason
supported by rational underpinnings for modifying the combination of
McNulty and Gear Ratios to include two tension adjusting mechanisms.
Appeal Br. 9–12. In support of this argument, Appellant lists certain
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

11
exemplary rationales discussed in MPEP § 2143, which are based on KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Id. at 10. Appellant
argues that the Examiner’s reasoning fails to meet the requirements to
support any one of these rationales. Id. at 10–11. Further, Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s reasoning “has absolutely nothing to do with the claimed
subject matter.” Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner clarifies the reasoning for the rejection of
claim 18, stating, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, at the time of filing, to add additional tension adjustment mechanisms in
order to increase the tightness of the looped mechanism more.” Ans. 15.
The Examiner has the better position. The Examiner’s proposed
modification of the reduction gear system disclosed by McNulty to include a
tensioning adjustment mechanism (idler pulley P) as taught by Dunn is
merely the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to
yield predictable results, namely, belt tensioning as disclosed by Dunn. See
Dunn, Title, Fig. 1, 1:9–14. The use of an additional tensioning adjustment
mechanism would have been a duplication of the use of a part already
disclosed by Dunn, and its result would have been a predictable increase in
the tensioning ability already provided by the addition of the first tensioning
adjustment mechanism. Appellant’s argument that Dunn discloses only a
single tensioning adjustment mechanism does not apprise us of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as
unpatentable over McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Dunn.
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

12
Rejection III—McNulty, Gear Ratios, and Weisner
Claims 19 and 20
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites, “the housing can be
rotated in relation to a swivel by a drive element.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims
App.). Claim 20 depends from claim 19. Id.
The Examiner finds Weisner discloses “a cutting assembly having a
housing (4) that can be rotated in relation to a swivel by a drive element (8)
wherein the swivel includes at least one limit to prevent the housing from
rotating beyond a predetermined amount (8, piston length).” Non-Final Act.
11. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify the
housing of the modified McNulty to include a swivel and drive element as
taught by Weisner in order to provide an adjustment for the depth of the
cut.” Id.
Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner has provided no indication of how
or where Weisner teaches or discloses a swivel, where the alleged housing 4
can be rotated in relation to the swivel. Furthermore, Weisner does not
actually appear to disclose anything related to that the alleged housing 4 can
be rotated in relation to a swivel.” Appeal Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner finds “Weisner teaches a housing (4) that
can be rotated in relation to a swivel by a drive element (8). Weisner clearly
depicts in Fig. 1 (col. 4, lines 42–46) . . . the drive element (8, piston
cylinder) rotates (pivots) the housing (4) about a swivel (not shown).” Ans.
16.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 because the Examiner’s
finding that Weisner teaches a housing that can be rotated as claimed is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Weisner describes the item
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

13
identified by reference numeral 4 as a “cutting arm,” which includes cutting
chain 5, an upper drive wheel, lower deflecting roller 7, and a guide bar.
Weisner, 4:40–44. The Examiner does not adequately explain how a cutting
arm such as cutting arm 4 of Weisner qualifies as a housing. This omission
is made more stark by the fact that the “housing” recited in claim 19 is the
same housing recited in claim 1, which requires that each rotatable member
of the ratio transmission has a mounting shaft positioned at a fixed location
on the housing. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19,
and claim 20 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over McNulty, Gear
Ratios, and Weisner.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 7–17 103(a) McNulty, Gear Ratios 1, 2, 5, 7–
17

6 103(a) McNulty, Gear Ratios,
Michie
6
3, 4, 18 103(a) McNulty, Gear Ratios,
Dunn
3, 4, 18
19, 20 103(a) McNulty, Gear Ratios,
Weisner
19, 20

Overall
Outcome
1–18 19, 20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2020-000329
Application 14/880,569

14
AFFIRMED-IN-PART