HUSQVARNA AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2021

2020003998 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2021)

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.
14/311,140 06/20/2014 Anthony BARATTA 738004/00084/P1229US02 3668
148434 7590 07/29/2021
Burr Forman McNair
Husqvarna
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
EXAMINER
DION, MARCEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2021 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
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LISA M. GUIJT, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, 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 281–300. No other claims are pending.
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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Husqvarna AB.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 281, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
281. A tool comprising a lamination of at least two layers and
at least two adhesive layers, the tool comprising:
a first disc and a second disc that are each substantially
circular in shape;
a first adhesive layer configured to be cured on the first
disc;
a second adhesive layer configured to be cured on the
second disc, the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive
layer configured to be disposed on respective sides of the first
disc and the second disc that face each other;
a plurality of arc-shaped cutting segments having an inner
arc shape and an outer arc shape, wherein the inner arc shape of
each of the arc-shaped cutting segments is directly affixed to an
outer perimeter of both the first and second discs; and
a medial section, wherein the first adhesive layer and
second adhesive layer are located on opposite sides of the medial
section and the first disc and the second disc are aligned with
each other and with the first and second adhesive layers, and
wherein the medial section comprises extension portions
that are aligned with the arc-shaped cutting segments, each
extension portion having a plurality of cutting segments.
REJECTIONS
Claims 281–288, 290, 291, 293, 294, and 296 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Hallez, US Pat. No. 4,718,398,
Jan. 12, 1988, and Sakarcan, US Publ. No. 2003/0213483 A1, Nov. 20,
2003.
Claims 289 and 295 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious in view of Hallez, Sakarcan, and Okinaga, US Pat. No. 5,040,341,
Aug. 20, 1991.
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

3
Claim 292 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in
view of Hallez, Sakarcan, and Parini, US Pat. No. 6,129,077, Oct. 10, 2000.
Claims 297 and 298 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious in view of Hallez and Eichenlaub, US Pat. No. 4,345,579, Aug. 24,
1982.
Claims 299 and 300 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious in view of Hallez, Sakarcan, and Okinaga.
OPINION
Claims 281–296
In the rejection of independent claim 281, the Examiner cites Hallez’s
pair of discs 5 as the claimed first disc and second discs, and the Examiner
determines that Hallez teaches a plurality of arc-shaped cutting segments
“directly affixed” to an outer perimeter of both the first and second discs,
even though Hallez discloses a rim between the cutting segments and the
perimeters of the first and second discs. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Hallez, 4:61–
62, Fig. 3). Although the Examiner acknowledges that “[a] typical
interpretation of the phrase ‘directly affixed’ in [the] context of the claim
might require direct abutting contact” (Ans. 4), nonetheless, the Examiner
interprets the language “directly affixed” in claim 281 to permit an
intervening component based on the language of dependent claim 293. Ans.
4–5.
Claim 293 depends from claim 281 and recites “a weld ring at least
partially interposed between the perimeter of the first and second discs and
the plurality of arc-shaped cutting segments, such that the plurality of arc-
shaped cutting segments are located on an outer perimeter of the weld ring.”
Id. As claim 293 requires arc-shaped cutting segments located on an outer
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

4
perimeter of the weld ring and that the weld ring is at least partially
interposed between the cutting segments and the first and second discs,
claim 293 appears to be in conflict with the plain language of claim 281,
which recites that the cutting segments are “directly affixed” to the first and
second discs.
Because of that conflict, the Examiner interpreted “directly affixed” in
claim 281 to include within its scope the intervening welding ring as claimed
in claim 293, and thus to also include the rim of Hallez. On the record
before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s interpretation of “directly
affixed” because allowing an intervening part between the inner arc shape of
each arc-shaped cutting segment and the outer perimeter of both the first and
second discs would read “directly affixed” out of the claim. Instead, rather
than effectively rewriting claim 281, we interpret claim 281 consistent with
the claim language and the Specification, and we determine that “directly
affixed” in the context of claim 281 does not permit an intervening rim (or
welding ring) wherein the arc-shaped cutting segments are located on an
outer perimeter of the weld ring instead of being directly affixed to an outer
perimeter of both the first and second discs.2 Cf. Claim 285 (reciting, in
relevant part, that the tool further comprises “a weld ring at least partially
interposed between the perimeter of the first and second discs,” which still

2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether claim 293 satisfied the definiteness requirement (as requiring a weld
ring interposed between cutting segments and first and second discs while
also directly affixed); has adequate written-description support; and/or is a
proper dependent claim, see Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., 457
F.3d 1284, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (determining a dependent claim is invalid
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph for reciting subject matter
excluded from the scope of the claim from which it depends).
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

5
arguably allows for the possibility that the arc shape of the arc-shaped
cutting segments are directly affixed to the outer perimeter of both the first
and second discs where the partially interposed weld ring does not come
between them).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 281,
nor the rejections of claims 282–296, which rely on the same interpretation
of “directly affixed.”
Claims 297 & 298
Independent claim 297 is similar to claim 281, “although in somewhat
different language.” Appeal Br. 9. Among the different language is claim
297’s recitation of cutting segments “affixed” to the outer perimeter of each
of the first and second discs, which broadens the claim from the “directly
affixed” language of claim 281. The Examiner determines that Hallez
teaches cutting segments affixed to first and second discs 5, and the
Examiner cites Eichenlaub for teachings of a medial section comprising a
plurality of extension portions with a plurality of second cutting segments
that are aligned with the first cutting segments, as claimed. Final Act. 6–7.
First, Appellant argues Hallez’s cutting segments are affixed to a rim
2, not the first and second discs 5. Appeal Br. 11. In contrast to our
determination above regarding “directly affixed,” we agree with the
Examiner that the language of claim 297 allows for an intervening device
such as Hallez’s rim, and as such, we agree with the Examiner that Hallez
teaches cutting segments affixed to the first and second discs, as claimed.
Appellant also argues that Eichenlaub does not teach the claimed
medial section. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that Eichenlaub teaches
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

6
only a single-layer saw plate, not a first disc, second disc, and medial section
aligned with each other and with the adhesive layers. Id.
Appellant’s arguments attack the references individually without
substantively addressing the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
reference’s teachings and are therefore unpersuasive of error. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted above, the
Examiner cites Hallez for its teachings of a multi-layer blade, and the
Examiner proposes combining those teachings with Eichenlaub’s teachings
of a medial section in order to increase blade cooling. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5–
6. We agree with the Examiner’s determination, and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 297, as well as claim 298, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
Claims 299 & 300
Claim 299 is similar to claim 297 and additionally requires a plurality
of radially extending gullets, each of which “extends proximate a center of
the medial disc.” Appellant advances the same arguments addressed above
regarding claim 297 (Appeal Br. 13–15), which we disagree with for the
same reasons.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in determining that Okinaga
teaches radially extending gullets extending proximate a center of the medial
disc. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, the gullets of Okinaga only
extend through an outer periphery of the blade to define the cutting segments
and the gullets “do not radially extend anywhere near a center of any disc
much less a medial disc, as claimed in independent claim 299.” Id.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill “to make the gullets extending proximate a center of the
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

7
medial disc of Hallez in order to increase cooling of the cutter as taught by
Okinaga.” Final Act. 8 (citing Okinaga, 4:17–42). Appellant does not
substantively rebut or address the Examiner’s determination (see Appeal Br.
16; Reply Br. 3), and thus, we are not apprised by Appellant of error in the
Examiner’s determination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 299, as
well as the rejection of claim 300, which Appellant does not address
separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 281–296 are reversed. The
Examiner’s rejection of claims 297–300 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
281–288,
290, 291,
293, 294,
296
103 Hallez, Sakarcan 281–288,
290, 291,
293, 294,
296
289, 295 103 Hallez, Sakarcan,
Okinaga
289, 295
292 103 Hallez, Sakarcan,
Parini
292
297, 298 103 Hallez, Eichenlaub 297, 298
299, 300 103 Hallez, Sakarcan,
Okinaga
299, 300
Overall
Outcome
297–300 281–296
Appeal 2020-003998
Application 14/311,140

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART