Ex Parte Donovan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2012

10774335 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

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.
10/774,335 02/06/2004 Robert Donovan DPEC-119 5268
22827 7590 11/14/2012
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
CHOI, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2012 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 ROBERT DONOVAN and DEWAYNE STANFORD
____________

Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a band saw tensioning assembly.
Claims 1, 12, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the
key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A tensioning mechanism, comprising:
a tension spring assembly for applying a
tensioning force;
a cam assembly, the cam assembly applying a
force to the tension spring assembly;
a cover assembly adjustably coupled with the cam
assembly, the cover assembly including a handle for
enabling a user to selectively engage the cover assembly
with the cam assembly in an index position, the handle
having a first tensioning position and a second tensioning
position for translating the user selected tensioning force
to the tension spring assembly through the cam assembly;
and
an index indicator coupled with the cover
assembly, the index indicator for indicating the index
position for the cover assembly to enable the translation
of the desired tensioning force,
wherein the index indicator enables the quick
selection by the user of the amount of tensioning force to
be applied.
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

3

REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-
16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee
(US 6,557,447 B2, iss. May 6, 2003). Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
Appellants allege that Lee’s cam assembly (defined by the Examiner
to include elements 30, 34, 35, 33 and 32) does not apply a force to the
spring assembly (defined by the Examiner to include elements 70, 60/61,
and 40); and that it is the force of gravity acting on the driven wheel 17, the
slide seat 20, the first elastic member 50, and the seat block 40 that act to
compress (i.e., apply a force to) the spring 70. App. Br. 11. Appellants also
allege that Lee’s cam assembly contacts only the cross rod 22 to move the
cross rod and the aforementioned elements up or allow the force of gravity
to move the cross rod and the aforementioned elements down. Id.
Appellants further allege that it is unreasonable to assert that, by the
eccentric wheel 30 applying a force to the cross rod 22, the eccentric wheel
30 is applying a force to the spring assembly. App. Br. 12. Appellants
contend that when Lee’s cam member rotates from the position in Figure 3
to the position in Figure 5, gravity forces the slide seat 20 downward and
moves the stop plate 25 (connected to the slide seat 20) downward which in
turn moves the elastic member 50 downward, which in turn moves the seat
block 40 downward. Id. Appellants also contend that downward movement
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

4

of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50 applies a force to the spring 70 to
compress the spring 70. App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellants’
allegation that downward movement of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50
applies a force to the spring 70 to compress the spring 70.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 merely requires the cam assembly
applying a force to the tension spring, and that Lee teaches a cam assembly
coupled to a sliding tension bracket 20 including a stop plate 25
operationally coupled to a plunger 40 that is operationally coupled to a
tension spring 70. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that whether the cam is in
the position shown in Figure 3 or the position shown in Figure 5, the tension
spring 70 applies a reaction force (i.e., a force against a compression force)
to the slide seat 20 that is operationally coupled to the cam assembly. Id.
The Examiner also explains that, because a reaction force is applied by the
tension spring 70 to the slide seat 20, a force must be applied by the cam
assembly to act against the reaction force of the tension spring 70 on the cam
assembly. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that, although the slide seat 20
lowers by its own weight when the cam is in the position shown in Figure 5,
there is a force on the tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity
against the slide seat 20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly, and
that there is consequently a force being exerted by the cam assembly against
the tension spring assembly via the slide seat 20. Ans. 5.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that the tension spring 70
applies a reaction force to the slide seat 20, and that there is a force on the
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

5

tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity against the slide seat
20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly. We therefore disagree with
the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s cam assembly applies a force to Lee’s
tension spring assembly.
Lee’s stop plate 25 and threaded hole 24 are fixed with respect to the
slide seat 20. Lee, col. 2, ll. 22-23, 26-27. Therefore, the only structure of
Lee that applies any force to the elastic member 70 is the microadjustment
rod 60, which moves the support portion 62 (located between the stop plate
25 and the threaded hole 24) relative to the slide seat 20 to compress the
elastic member 70 within the slide seat 20 or release pressure on the elastic
member 70 within the slide seat 20. Lee, col. 3, ll. 29-34. The movement of
the slide seat 20 upward and downward between the positions in Figure 3
and Figure 5 only causes the elastic member 70 (along with the other
components 60, 61, 62 of the spring assembly) to rise and fall with the slide
seat 20, and does not exert any compressive force on the elastic member 70.
Thus, Lee’s cam assembly does not apply a force to Lee’s tension spring
assembly.
Because the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s cam assembly applies a
force to Lee’s tension spring assembly is in error, and this finding forms the
basis of the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 26, and their
respective dependent claims 2-5, 11, 13-16, 22, 25, 27-30, 36, and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee, the rejection cannot be sustained.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

6

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30,
36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee.

REVERSED

mls
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT DONOVAN and DEWAYNE STANFORD
____________

Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a band saw tensioning assembly.
Claims 1, 12, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the
key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A tensioning mechanism, comprising:
a tension spring assembly for applying a
tensioning force;
a cam assembly, the cam assembly applying a
force to the tension spring assembly;
a cover assembly adjustably coupled with the cam
assembly, the cover assembly including a handle for
enabling a user to selectively engage the cover assembly
with the cam assembly in an index position, the handle
having a first tensioning position and a second tensioning
position for translating the user selected tensioning force
to the tension spring assembly through the cam assembly;
and
an index indicator coupled with the cover
assembly, the index indicator for indicating the index
position for the cover assembly to enable the translation
of the desired tensioning force,
wherein the index indicator enables the quick
selection by the user of the amount of tensioning force to
be applied.
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

3

REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-
16, 22, 25-30, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee
(US 6,557,447 B2, iss. May 6, 2003). Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
Appellants allege that Lee’s cam assembly (defined by the Examiner
to include elements 30, 34, 35, 33 and 32) does not apply a force to the
spring assembly (defined by the Examiner to include elements 70, 60/61,
and 40); and that it is the force of gravity acting on the driven wheel 17, the
slide seat 20, the first elastic member 50, and the seat block 40 that act to
compress (i.e., apply a force to) the spring 70. App. Br. 11. Appellants also
allege that Lee’s cam assembly contacts only the cross rod 22 to move the
cross rod and the aforementioned elements up or allow the force of gravity
to move the cross rod and the aforementioned elements down. Id.
Appellants further allege that it is unreasonable to assert that, by the
eccentric wheel 30 applying a force to the cross rod 22, the eccentric wheel
30 is applying a force to the spring assembly. App. Br. 12. Appellants
contend that when Lee’s cam member rotates from the position in Figure 3
to the position in Figure 5, gravity forces the slide seat 20 downward and
moves the stop plate 25 (connected to the slide seat 20) downward which in
turn moves the elastic member 50 downward, which in turn moves the seat
block 40 downward. Id. Appellants also contend that downward movement
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

4

of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50 applies a force to the spring 70 to
compress the spring 70. App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellants’
allegation that downward movement of stop plate 25 and elastic member 50
applies a force to the spring 70 to compress the spring 70.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 merely requires the cam assembly
applying a force to the tension spring, and that Lee teaches a cam assembly
coupled to a sliding tension bracket 20 including a stop plate 25
operationally coupled to a plunger 40 that is operationally coupled to a
tension spring 70. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that whether the cam is in
the position shown in Figure 3 or the position shown in Figure 5, the tension
spring 70 applies a reaction force (i.e., a force against a compression force)
to the slide seat 20 that is operationally coupled to the cam assembly. Id.
The Examiner also explains that, because a reaction force is applied by the
tension spring 70 to the slide seat 20, a force must be applied by the cam
assembly to act against the reaction force of the tension spring 70 on the cam
assembly. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that, although the slide seat 20
lowers by its own weight when the cam is in the position shown in Figure 5,
there is a force on the tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity
against the slide seat 20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly, and
that there is consequently a force being exerted by the cam assembly against
the tension spring assembly via the slide seat 20. Ans. 5.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that the tension spring 70
applies a reaction force to the slide seat 20, and that there is a force on the
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

5

tension spring 70 in opposition to the force of gravity against the slide seat
20, which in turn acts against the cam assembly. We therefore disagree with
the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s cam assembly applies a force to Lee’s
tension spring assembly.
Lee’s stop plate 25 and threaded hole 24 are fixed with respect to the
slide seat 20. Lee, col. 2, ll. 22-23, 26-27. Therefore, the only structure of
Lee that applies any force to the elastic member 70 is the microadjustment
rod 60, which moves the support portion 62 (located between the stop plate
25 and the threaded hole 24) relative to the slide seat 20 to compress the
elastic member 70 within the slide seat 20 or release pressure on the elastic
member 70 within the slide seat 20. Lee, col. 3, ll. 29-34. The movement of
the slide seat 20 upward and downward between the positions in Figure 3
and Figure 5 only causes the elastic member 70 (along with the other
components 60, 61, 62 of the spring assembly) to rise and fall with the slide
seat 20, and does not exert any compressive force on the elastic member 70.
Thus, Lee’s cam assembly does not apply a force to Lee’s tension spring
assembly.
Because the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s cam assembly applies a
force to Lee’s tension spring assembly is in error, and this finding forms the
basis of the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 26, and their
respective dependent claims 2-5, 11, 13-16, 22, 25, 27-30, 36, and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee, the rejection cannot be sustained.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appeal 2010-010449
Application 10/774,335

6

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-16, 22, 25-30,
36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee.

REVERSED

mls