Jerome Gizowski et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2021

2020004056 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
16/044,794 07/25/2018 Jerome Edward Gizowski GIZ-003 1046
7590 01/28/2021
John Dellinger
3103 Valley Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
EXAMINER
NICONOVICH, ALEXANDER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME EDWARD GIZOWSKI and
FREDERICK SCOTT GIZOWSKI
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JILL D. HILL, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s Final Action rejecting claims 1–8. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as the named inventors,
Jerome Edward Gizowski and·Frederick Scott Gizowski. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an arrow point that can independently
rotate relative to the arrow shaft on which it is mounted. Spec. 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A spinning point for mounting to an end of a shaft of
an arrow, said spinning point comprising an arrowhead that
freely rotates relative to a rotation of the arrow,
wherein said arrowhead consists essentially of a unitary
main body and stem manufactured as a single element, and
wherein said spinning point further comprises a sleeve
disposed upon said stem,
said sleeve arranged such that said arrowhead freely
rotates relative to the rotation of the arrow when the arrow is in
flight.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sprandel US 3,910,579 Oct. 7, 1975
Lekavich US 5,482,293 Jan. 9, 1996
Simo US 6,142,896 Nov. 7, 2000
Gizowski US 7,207,908 B1 Apr. 24, 2007

REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
8 112(b) Indefiniteness
1, 5 103 Sprandel
2–4 103 Sprandel, Gizowski
6, 7 103 Sprandel, Lekavich
8 103 Sprandel, Simo

Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

3
OPINION
Claim 8: Rejected As Indefinite
The Examiner rejects claim 8 as indefinite because “it is unclear
which claim this claim is intended to depend from as the claim is omitted in
‘The spinning point of, wherein.’” Final Act. 2. Appellant does not respond
to this rejection, and has therefore waived any argument of error.
Accordingly, the rejection is summarily affirmed. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to
present arguments on a particular issue—or , more broadly, on a particular
rejection—the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection”); Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 1205.02 (9th ed., Rev. 10, June, 2020) (“If a ground of rejection
stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has
waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
Claims 1 and 5: Rejected as Unpatentable over Sprandel
Appellant argues claims 1 and 5 as a group. Appeal Br. 4-8. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group, and decide the appeal of this
rejection on the basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Sprandel teaches a spinning point comprising
an arrowhead and a sleeve, the arrowhead consisting essentially of a main
body and a stem, the sleeve disposed upon the stem and arranged such that
the arrowhead freely rotates relative to the rotation of the arrow when the
arrow is in flight. Final Act. 3 (citing Sprandel, 3:19–42, Fig. 6). Although
not entirely clear, we understand the Examiner to be relying on broadhead
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

4
56 (with socket 74) as corresponding to the claimed arrowhead main body,
and on spindle member 58 (comprising portions 78, 66, 64, and 72) as
corresponding to the arrowhead stem. See id. at 6–7 (noting that “the only
difference between the arrowhead of Sprandel and that of the claims [which
recite an arrowhead consisting essentially of a unitary main body and stem]
is that the head of Sprandel is formed with the head and stem portions
having a threaded connection between them”); Ans. 7 (same). The
Examiner acknowledges that “the pointed penetrating part of the
arrowhead”—i.e., broadhead 56—is “removably secured to the spindle”—
i.e., stem—such that Sprandel’s main body and step are not “manufactured
as a single element.” Id. at 3. The Examiner determines, however, that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art to have modified the pointed portion to have been integrally
formed with the spindle as only single piece of material as this
modification is merely a matter of design choice and could
reduce [the] manufacturing costs and/or prevent the tip from
falling off during use and further because it has been held that
forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed
in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the
art.
Id.; see also id. at 7 (“the use of a one piece construction instead of the
structure disclosed in the prior art (several parts rigidly secured together as a
single unit) would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” (citing
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965)).
We have considered Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Final Action and Answer, and add the following
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

5
primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues, for example, that “Sprandel
provides no reason to combine spindle 58 with broadhead 56, and no reason
to expect such a combination to be successful, especially considering
Sprandel’s teaching of substantial additional structure to connect the
disparate elements.” Appeal Br. 6. But Sprandel expressly teaches
combining spindle 58 and broadhead 56, as evidence by Figure 6 of
Sprandel. To the extent that Appellant is arguing that Sprandel does not
expressly provide a reason to combine these structures “as a single element,”
this argument is unavailing: an express reason to modify is not necessary to
support a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Instead, the Examiner need only articulate some
“reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006). Here, the
Examiner finds that the modification is an “obvious design choice.” Final
Act. 3; see id. at 7 (relying on Larson, finding the modification to be an
“obvious engineering choice”). This finding is consistent with cases in
which reliance on such an obviousness rational was affirmed. See In re
Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to show that
the [differences in the claimed invention], as compared to [the reference],
result in a difference in function or give unexpected results.”); In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“Use of such a means of electrical
connection in lieu of those used in the references solves no stated problem
and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the
art.”); Larson, 340 F.2d at 968 (“the use of a one piece construction instead
of the [two-piece] structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a
matter of obvious engineering choice”). In this case, the Specification does
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

6
not state that forming the arrowhead main body and step “as a single
element” solves any problem, provides a critical advantage over a two-piece
assembly, or changes the operation of the claimed device.
Appellant argues that “Sprandel teaches that use of the adaptor spindle
58 was an advantage in that it permitted the user to ‘mount various types of
arrowheads or broadheads on an arrow shaft in such a manner that the
arrowhead is freely turnable with respect to the shaft.’” Appeal Br. 6–7
(quoting Sprandel, 3:36–40). According to Appellant, “[t]he separate
spindle structure adaptor in Sprandel is not an additional structure which can
be removed without undoubtedly undermining this advantage, as there
would be no facility for mounting various types of arrowheads.” Id. at 7.
The Examiner responds that while Sprandel’s design may allow different
types of tips to be attached to an arrow initially, “once they are attached and
ready for use, they are cemented (generally indicates an irreversible
connection) and fixed to the spindle for use to form an integral arrowhead
manufacture[d] as a single element.” Ans. 8; see Sprandel, 3:30–33
(teaching that head portion 72 of spindle 58 is threaded into socket 74 of
broadhead 56 and “cemented therein”). Appellant does not dispute that
cementing broadhead 56 to spindle 58 forms an irreversible connection
between the two components. Thus, the arrowheads are not actually
interchangeable after manufacture, and we are not persuaded that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from making the
proposed modification.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 5 as unpatentable over Sprandel.
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

7
Remaining Rejections
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 2–4
and 6–8, but instead relies on arguments made in support of the patentability
of claim 1, from which claims 2–4 and 6–8 depend. Because we found those
arguments unpersuasive, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4
as unpatentable over Sprandel and Gizowski; claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable
over Sprandel and Lekavich; and claim 8 as unpatentable over Sprandel and
Simo.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8 112(b) Indefiniteness 8
1, 5 103 Sprandel 1, 5
2–4 103 Sprandel,
Gizowski
2–4
6, 7 103 Sprandel, Lekavich 6, 7
8 103 Sprandel, Simo 8
Overall
Outcome
1–8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004056
Application 16/044,794

8
AFFIRMED