2020005236 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

SawStop Holding LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 31, 2021

2020005236 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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. 16/126,664 09/10/2018 Stephen F. Gass SDT 327B 4152 27630 7590 08/31/2021 SawStop Holding LLC 11555 SW Myslony Street Tualatin, OR 97062 EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2021 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 STEPHEN F. GASS Appeal 2020-005236 Application 16/126,664 Technology Center 3700 Before KEVIN F. TURNER, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, 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 and 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies SawStop Holding, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005236 Application 16/126,664 2 BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention relates to safety systems for power equipment such as a saw. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below with key limitations emphasized: 1. A machine comprising: a blade configured to move to cut a workpiece; and an injury mitigation system with a normal mode wherein the injury mitigation system is configured to take an action to mitigate injury in the event of contact between a user and the blade while the blade is moving, and a bypass mode wherein the injury mitigation system is disabled and takes no action to mitigate injury in the event of contact between the user and the blade while the blade is moving. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Yoneda US 4,117,752 Oct. 3, 1978 Pilchowski US 6,418,829 B1 July 16, 2002 REJECTIONS2 I. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yoneda. Final Act. 4. II. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yoneda and Pilchowski. Id. at 5. 2 The Examiner withdrew a § 112 indefiniteness rejection. Ans. 5. We understand that the Examiner is likewise withdrawing the objection to the drawings (Final Act. 2), because claim 1 is no longer required to recite a circuit, switch, or mechanism that changes the mode of the injury mitigation system –– thus a mode changer need not be depicted in the drawings. Appeal 2020-005236 Application 16/126,664 3 ANALYSIS Rejection I - Anticipation The Examiner finds that Yoneda discloses a machine with “a blade 14 configured to move to cut a workpiece,” and “an injury mitigation system (defined by clamp brake 20 shown in Fig. 1, electrical part shown in Fig. 5, and on and off switch of the machine) with a normal mode” and “a bypass mode (in which the power of the machine is turned off) wherein the injury mitigation system is (inherently) disabled and takes no action to mitigate injury in the event of contact between the user and the blade while the blade is moving.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues, inter alia, that when Yoneda’s machine is turned off, it is not true that “the injury mitigation system act or does not act ‘while the blade is moving’” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8. The Examiner’s finding that turning Yoneda’s machine off meets the “bypass mode” limitation of claim 1 does not give sufficient weight to the term “bypass mode.” If Yoneda’s machine is off, nothing needs to be disabled or circumvented. See, e.g., Spec. 33:11–14. There is no bypassing, there is just “off.” For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Yoneda. Rejection II - Obviousness The Examiner finds that Yoneda discloses a machine with a blade to cut a workpiece, and “an injury mitigation system (defined by clamp brake 20 shown in Fig. 1, electrical part shown in Fig. 5) with a normal mode wherein the injury mitigation system is configured to [stop the rotation of blade 14] to mitigate injury in the event of contact.” Final Act. 5. Although Yoneda does not disclose a bypass mode for its injury mitigation system (see Appeal 2020-005236 Application 16/126,664 4 above analysis), the Examiner finds that Pilchowski discloses using “an injury mitigation system 120 (which detects a dangerous condition when the cover of the table saw is not close to the working surface)” having normal and bypass modes. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Pilchowski’s bypass mode to Yoneda’s injury mitigation system to selectively disable Yoneda’s injury mitigation system when, for example, a wet workpiece such as wet wood is being cut. Id. Pilchowski’s saw has a control panel 100 with a start switch 102, a stop switch 104, and a key switch 106 having ON, OFF, and BYPASS positions. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Pilchowski 4:48–52). When the key switch 106 is in the ON position, the saw will not start unless the blade guard is in place. Id. (citing Pilchowski 4:66–5:3). The user must turn the key switch to the BYPASS position to use the saw without the blade guard. Id. Thus, Pilchowski discloses a bypass mode that allows an injury mitigation system to be circumvented. Appellant argues that Pilchowski’s injury mitigation system is an installed blade guard, rather than sensing a user contacting a moving blade. See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that “there is no prior art teaching . . . of how Pilchowski’s switches could be used to bypass a safety system like Yoneda’s,” and no reason why a skilled artisan would want to bypass Yoneda’s safety system. Id. According to Appellant, while a user might want to remove Pilchowski’s blade guard to see better and make a more accurate cut, a user’s view of Yoneda’s band cutter blade is not obstructed. Id. at 9–10. Further, Appellant argues, Pilchowski bypasses preventing the blade from moving, while the claim recites bypassing injury mitigation while the blade is moving. Id. at 10. Appeal 2020-005236 Application 16/126,664 5 The Examiner responds that, in the proposed combination of Yoneda and Pilchowski, Pilchowski’s “bypass mode” concept is applied to Yoneda’s injury mitigation system that stops the blade upon user contact. Thus, selecting the bypass mode would bypass Yoneda’s brake, such that the brake does not stop the blade when contact between the user and the blade is detected. See Ans. 8. The Examiner contends that Pilchowski’s bypass mechanism disables the mitigation system such that no action is taken to stop the blade or motor, but does not bypass the detection system. Id. Appellant replies that “Pilchowski simply discloses a blade guard with interlocks - the interlocks are used to indicate the presence or absence of the blade guard.” Reply Br. 4. Further, Appellant argues, the prior art fails to teach “how to enable a passive system like Pilchowski’s interlock switches in an active system like Yoneda’s.” The Examiner is not proposing to bodily incorporate a passive system like Pilchowski’s interlock switches in an active system like Yoneda. Rather, the Examiner relies on Pilchowski solely for the concept of bypassing an injury mitigation system. Thus, in Yoneda, the bypass mode would allow a user to bypass Yoneda’s injury mitigation system, not Pilchowski’s passive system. Appellant does not argue, and we do not readily discern, that a skilled artisan would be unable to implement Pilchowski’s “bypass mode” concept in Yoneda’s device to allow a user to circumvent Yoneda’s injury mitigation system. Further, we see no reason why Pilchowski’s “bypass mode” concept cannot be divorced from its blade guard and used to circumvent Yoneda’s injury mitigation system. Appeal 2020-005236 Application 16/126,664 6 Appellant argues that “there must be some known or obvious way to use Pilchowski’s teaching of a passive component like interlock switches in an active safety system like Yoneda’s, and the examiner has not articulated any way to do so.” Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by this argument. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420. Here, we agree with the Examiner that a person skilled in the art could have applied Pilchowski’s bypass concept in Yoneda’s device and fit the teachings together using the knowledge of a skilled artisan. For the reasons explained above, we discern no error in the Examiner’s determination of obvious. We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as obvious over Yoneda and Pilchowski. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2 102(b) Yoneda 1, 2 1, 2 103 Yoneda, Pilchowski 1, 2 Overall Outcome 1, 2 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). AFFIRMED