Ex Parte Gassmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

11593978 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2017)

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.
11/593,978 11/06/2006 Joerg Gassmann PTB-6032-123 5469
23117 7590 10/26/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOERG GASSMANN, ROMAN GOLDBERG, and
KAINITSCHMANN
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joerg Gassmann et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12, 17—20, 22—27, and 32-47
in this application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERATE
GMBH as the real party in interest. Supplemental Appeal Brief (filed
Nov. 7, 2014) (hereafter “Appeal Br.”) 3.
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 12 and 23 are independent. Claim 12 illustrates the subject
matter on appeal:
12. A household appliance to treat household items
comprising:
a housing;
a ducting system configured to guide an air stream to
treat the household items, the ducting system including a
section;
a filter extending in a direction substantially transverse to
the air stream through the section, the filter being configured to
extract lint from the air stream;
a scraper configured to move linearly along a surface of
the filter between a first end of the filter and a second end of the
filter in the direction substantially transverse to the air stream,
wherein the scraper is moveable along a linear path in a first
direction from a stored position at the first end of the filter to
the second end of the filter, the scraper being configured to
remove lint from the surface of the filter, and the scraper is
movable along the linear path in a second direction, which is
opposite the first direction, from the second end of the filter to
the first end of the filter to return the scraper to the stored
position at the first end of the filter; and
a convex drive band configured to move the scraper, the
convex drive band having a first end and a second end, wherein
the first end is coupled to the scraper and the second end is a
free end that extends into a space within the housing.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 12, 18—20, 23,2 27, 32—42, and 44^47 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pauly (US 1,791,574, iss. Feb. 10,
2 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection (Final Act. 2) does not include
claim 23, but it is considered in the underlying analysis {id. at 4—5).
2
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
1931), Carpenter (US 3,428,996, iss. Feb. 25, 1969), and Luck
(US 2,422,025, iss. June 10, 1947).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Simpson (US 3,041,964, iss. July 3, 1962).
Claims 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Ellis (US 2,570,437, iss.
Oct. 9, 1951).
Claims 26 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Lucia (US 3,364,580, iss.
Jan. 23, 1968).
ANALYSIS
A. §103 Obviousness over Pauly, Carpenter, and Luck
(Claims 12, 18—20, 23, 27, 32—42, and 44—47)
Analogous Art
Appellants initially assert this rejection is improper because Carpenter
and Luck are non-analogous art to the present application. Appeal Br. 8—13.
“Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor [as the
inventor’s], regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658—59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A reference
is reasonably pertinent if it is one that, because of the matter with which it
deals, would have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his or her invention as a whole. In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
3
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
The Examiner finds Carpenter is reasonably pertinent to the present
inventors’ problem, identifying that problem as “finding a drive mechanism
that is simple and cost-effective.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner determines
“it would have been logical for the inventor[s] to search the art of linear
actuators” to solve the identified problem. Id. The Examiner’s position is
that Carpenter is analogous art because it teaches a linear actuator, despite
that the linear actuator is used in a vehicle windshield wiper. Id. The
Examiner further notes Carpenter’s “wiper 18 wipes across the window,”
and Appellants’ “invention also uses a wiper 8 to wipe across the lint
collector.” Ans. 9.
Appellants characterize the problem facing them as “providing a
domestic appliance with a linearly movable component which provides a
user with convenience when operating the domestic appliance and manages
with a drive which is simpler and more cost effective than known domestic
appliances,” “such as tumble dryers and washing machines.” Appeal Br. 9—
10, 11 (emphases added) (citing Spec. 1:9-19, 1:30—32, 1:35—2:18).
Appellants contend Carpenter is concerned with the “quite different”
problem of a windshield wiper adapted for use on a vehicle window,
specifically “to improve the percentage of glass being cleaned compared to
typical windshield wipers.” Id. at 10; see Carpenter, 1:10-25. Appellants
rely on the decision in In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as
indicating “it is inappropriate to find Carpenter to be reasonably pertinent to
the problems faced by the present inventors simply because of some
structural similarity between the present application and Carpenter.” Appeal
Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 3—6.
4
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
We find the problem faced by the inventors was to provide a drive for
a “linearly movable component” able to “transmit a shearing force in
addition to a tensile force” to move the component back and forth along a
linear path. Spec. 1:4, 1:28—34, 2:15—27. We find Carpenter is reasonably
pertinent to that problem, because Carpenter discloses a drive for linearly
moving wiper blade 18 back and forth across window 16 to wipe the
window. Carpenter, Figs. 1-2,1:12—26,1:49-58. That is, Carpenter’s
flexible drive cable 38 transmits a moving force to its wiping element in first
and second opposite directions (left-to-right and right-to-left in Figures 1—2)
to transmit shearing and tensile forces. Id. at 2:24—27, 2:39-51, 2:59-61.
Thus, Carpenter would have logically commended itself to the present
inventors’ attention in considering the present invention as a whole.
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary conflate the two criteria for
establishing analogous prior art, by requiring the prior art reference to be
both from the inventors’ field of endeavor (here, household appliances such
as clothes dryers) and reasonably related to the inventors’ problem. The
law, instead, requires only one of the criteria to be met for the prior art to be
analogous. /« re C/ay, 966 F.2d at 658—59. Further, Appellants are
incorrect that there is only some structural similarity between the present
invention and Carpenter, because there is overlap in function of transmitting
shearing and tensile forces to move a component back and forth along a
linear path, as set forth above. This overlap distinguishes the result in Klein
from the facts presented here. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348—51
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (three prior art references were not analogous because their
purpose was to separate contents into different compartments, rather than to
mix contents from different compartments as in the application on appeal);
5
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
id. at 1351—52 (two prior art references were not analogous because, while
they functioned to mix contents from separate compartments, the ratio of the
mixed contents could not be adjusted with a moveable divider as in the
application on appeal).
The Examiner also finds Luck is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the present inventors were involved. Final Act. 9;
Ans. 10. The Examiner reasons: “Luck is pertinent to the identified problem
(i.e., a simple mechanism that transmits a force from a motor for actuating
an element) since Luck discloses a simple mechanism that operates a drive
band in a linear fashion to position a stylus over a map.” Ans. 10.
Appellants argue “[n]one of the problems facing Luck are reasonably
pertinent to the present inventors.” Appeal Br. 12—13. In support,
Appellants assert “Luck clearly indicates the problems it faces as being
improving methods of computing and indicating the position of a mobile
station” on a navigational map. Id. (citing Luck, 1:44—52); Reply Br. 6.
We find Luck is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventors, set forth above. Luck discloses a drive for linearly moving
stylus 21, which “engage[s] a surface of a map 23,” back and forth along the
respective longitudinal axes of two form stiffened steel tapes 45. Luck,
Figs. 1 & 7—9, 2:26—34, 2:40-53, 3:14—32. This functionality is reasonably
similar to Appellants’ invention, in that Luck’s tape 45 transmits shearing
and tensile forces to move a component in first and second opposite
directions (left-to-right and right-to-left in Figures 7—8) along a linear path.
Id. at 3:14—32. Thus, we find Luck would have logically commended itself
to the present inventors’ attention in considering the present invention as a
6
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
whole. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary are not persuasive for
substantially the same reasons set forth above in connection with Carpenter.
Having concluded both Carpenter and Luck are analogous art, we next
consider the merits of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection on a claim-by­
claim basis.
Claim 12
The Examiner finds Pauly’s Figure 1 discloses a household appliance
(i.e., a clothes dryer) with scrapers 26 moving between the ends of lint
filter 7 along a linear path in a first direction to remove lint from the filter.
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner also finds Pauly discloses a drive band (i.e.,
sprocket chain 25)3 to move scrapers 26. Id. at 3. The Examiner determines
Pauly’s scrapers 26 are not configured to move along the linear path in a
second direction opposite the first direction, and Pauly’s drive band 25 is not
“convex” and does not have two ends. Id.
The Examiner finds Carpenter’s Figure 1 discloses a windshield
scraper 18 movable along a linear path in first and second opposite
directions, “horizontally . . . back and forth.” Id. The Examiner finds
Carpenter discloses a drive band (i.e., flexible drive cable 38) for moving
scraper 18, having a first end coupled to scraper 18 and a second, free end.
Id.\ see Carpenter, Fig. 2, 2:23—27, 2:39-51. The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to modify Pauly to have a scraper moving in
opposite directions along the linear path above the lint filter, and driven by a
drive band having two ends as in Carpenter. Final Act. 3. This would have
3 The Examiner refers to Pauly’s “drive band (9, fig. 1).” Final Act. 3. That
is clearly a typographical error, and the Examiner meant to refer to Pauly’s
sprocket chain 25 not Pauly’s door 9 as the claimed drive band.
7
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
been done, according to the Examiner, “to provide a simpler actuator for
improved reliability and durability’'' by having “fewer moving parts.” Id.
(emphases added); Ans. 11—12.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s proposed modification of Pauly in
light of Carpenter is improper because it would change Pauly’s principle of
operation, and render Pauly unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal
Br. 15—16. In these regards, Appellants cite Pauly’s “continuous,
uni-directional wiper system” which “provide[s] a number of. . . wipers
upon an endless traveling chain so as to have at least one of them always in
wiping engagement with the screen.” Appeal Br. 15 (in part quoting Pauly,
pg. 1,11. 24—27). Appellants also assert the evidence does not support the
Examiner’s determination that the proposed modification would simplify
Pauly’s lint scraper drive system, leading to improved reliability and
durability. Appeal Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 9-10. In this regard, Appellants
assert the modification would require “adding a power-source” and “adding
a reversible disc motor,” in addition to keeping Pauly’s existing
uni-directional motor for powering the air flow fan. Appeal Br. 15, 16;
Reply Br. 9-10. Appellants’ view, thus, is the modification would lead to
more parts, not fewer parts. Reply Br. 10.4
4 In the Reply Brief, Appellants also rely on the elapsed time between the
availability of Pauly and Carpenter (1969) and Appellants’ filing date
(2005), without evidence of anyone trying the Examiner’s combination.
Reply Br. 7—8 (citing Leo Pharm. Prods. Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1355—
56 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). This argument was raised for the first time in the
Reply Brief, without good cause. We, therefore, will not consider it. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) & 41.41(b)(2).
8
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
We determine the Examiner does not err in concluding it would have
been obvious to modify Pauly’s lint scraper system to use a drive band such
as Carpenter’s flexible drive cable 38, for bi-directional driving of a scraper.
This modification does not change Pauly’s principle of operation or render
Pauly unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, because Pauly would still
function to clear away lint from the filter by moving a scraper across the
filter. See, e.g., Final Act. 9; Ans. 11—12. Further, while the proposed
modification may indeed require the addition of a bi-directional motor, it
would also advantageously simplify the overall drive system by removing
several transmission components (e.g., sprocket chain 25; sprockets 23 and
24 for driving the removed sprocket chain 25; and gear 19 and drive band 21
for driving the removed sprocket 23), and by replacing multiple scrapers 26
with one scraper. See, e.g., Ans. 12. The Examiner does not err in
determining that replacing Pauly’s complicated transmission system with the
simple drive cable and bi-directional motor of Carpenter would improve the
drive system’s reliability and durability by providing fewer moving parts.
See, e.g., In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243—44 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (person
of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to pursue desirable properties of
one prior art reference, even at the expense of foregoing a benefit taught by
another prior art reference).
The Examiner next finds Fuck’s Figures 7—9 disclose “a flexible steel
convex . . . drive band [i.e., form stiffened tape 45] having sufficient
rigidity” to move stylus 21 over the surface of map 23. Final Act. 3
(emphasis added) (citing Fuck, 3:14—32); Ans. 10, 12; see also Fuck 2:19—
34 (describing functionality of tape 45). The Examiner determines it would
have been obvious to modify Carpenter’s drive band to be flexibly convex
9
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
steel in light of Luck, as the simple substitution of a known equivalent drive
band, predictably providing a more lightweight and compact drive band.
Final Act. 3—4, 9; Ans. 12—13.
Appellants argue there is no indication in Luck that tape 45 would be
strong enough to drive a lint scraper in opposite directions across a lint filter
to clear lint from the filter. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Luck, 2:19—53, 3:14—35).
Appellants point to Luck’s description of tape 45 as “provid[ing]
stiffness ... in a manner similar to that of an ordinary flexible steel tape
measure.” Id. (quoting Luck, 3:19-22). Appellants contend such a tape
“will retain its shape under tension, [but] flexion will cause the tape to bend
and lose its shape,” so the tape would be “unlikely to function as claimed.”
Id. Appellants additionally assert Luck’s tape 45 is missing the two ends of
a drive band required by claim 12, and “Carpenter does not show this feature
either.” Id. at 17—18.
We determine the Examiner does not err in concluding it would have
been obvious to modify Carpenter’s flexible drive band 38 to be a flexible
convex steel band, in light of Luck, to provide a more lightweight and
compact drive band. The opinion of appellants’ attorney that Luck’s “form
stiffened tape 45” which is “slightly dished to provide stiffness ... in a
manner similar to that of an ordinary flexible steel tape measure” (Luck,
3:15—22) might not be stiff enough to drive a lint scraper across a lint filter is
not supported by the evidence of record. The degree of flexing of a drive
band depends on thickness and on the material properties of the drive band,
and there is little or no evidence to suggest that Luck’s tape 45 would fail to
drive a lint scraper. Further, the Examiner relies on Carpenter not Luck for a
drive band having one end coupled to a scraper and a second, free end
10
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
extending into a space within the housing, and that finding is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 13; Carpenter, Fig. 2 (drive
band 38 has one end coupled to wiper 18, and another free end extending
into a space within the housing).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 as
having been obvious over Pauly, Carpenter, and Luck.
Claim 19
Claim 19 indirectly depends from claim 12 and recites, inter alia, “the
filter includes a channel that is arranged approximately horizontally and is
curved in a downward direction corresponding to a flow direction of the air
flow.'1'’ Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Appellants contend
the Examiner errs in finding Pauly’s filter 7 is so structured. Appeal Br. 19—
20; Final Act. 4; Ans. 13—14. We agree. Pauly’s filter 7 is shown in
Figures 1, 2, and 9 to be a planar filter, without any channels. The “curved
channel” identified by the Examiner’s annotation to Figure 2 of Pauly
(Ans. 14) is not part of filter 7. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 19 as having been obvious over Pauly, Carpenter, and Luck.
Claim 23
Appellants argue for the patentability of claim 23 separately from
claim 12, on the basis that claim 23 recites a clothes dryer, where claim 12
more broadly recites a household appliance to treat household items. Appeal
Br. 18. In Appellants’ view, this strengthens their argument that Carpenter
and Luck are non-analogous art, because it “add[s] complexity for the
problems facing the inventors such as heat, electricity, and moving parts” in
11
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
a clothes dryer. Id. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons
provided above, which account for the clothes dryer context of claim 23.
Appellants further assert the clothes dryer context of claim 23
strengthens their arguments that Pauly would not have been combined with
Carpenter and Luck. Id. at 19. Appellants contend “nothing in the
disclosure of Carpenter [or] Luck . . . suggests that [they] would be helpful,
compatible with, or able to be used in an environment like the inside of a
clothes dryer,” because neither reference “operate[s] in an environment that
is intentionally heated or has a spinning drum and internal electronics” for
controlling a clothes dryer. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive, because the only modifications to
Pauly’s clothes dryer being proposed by the Examiner concern Pauly’s lint
scraper drive mechanism. As explained above, the Examiner has provided
an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning setting forth why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the modifications.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 23 as
having been obvious over Pauly, Carpenter, and Luck.
Claims 18, 20, 27, 22—42, and 44—47
Appellants do not argue for the patentability of dependent claims 18,
20, 27, 32-42, and 44-47 separately from their respective parent claims 1
and 23. Any such arguments are therefore waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal
brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal”). For the reasons provided above, we sustain the rejection of these
dependent claims as having been obvious over Pauly, Carpenter, and Luck.
12
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
B. §103 Obviousness over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Simpson
(Claim 17)
Appellants argue for the patentability of claim 17 separately from its
parent claim 12 on the basis that Simpson is non-analogous art to the present
application. Appeal Br. 13, 18. Claim 17 recites “the convex drive band has
a coating comprising a slip agent.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). Appellants’ Specification indicates the slip agent maybe
“PTFE plastic” (i.e., TEFLON), and the slip agent coating ‘ facilitates
movement of the drive band . . . and ensures reliable operation over a long
period of time.” Spec. 3:21—24 (emphases added).
The Examiner finds Simpson is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the present inventors were involved, because Simpson
discloses “a metal drive band having a slip agent that improves the
durability of the drive band.” Final Act. 9 (emphases added). The Examiner
further finds Simpson’s “slip agent. . . improves the strength of the drive
band,” which is useful in Appellants’ invention “to keep the lint [scraper]
moving in a linear fashion” and prevent buckling. Ans. 11 (emphasis
added).
We determine the Examiner’s findings in support of determining
Simpson to be analogous art are not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Simpson pertinently discloses type belt 10, comprising belt 14
carrying type members 13. Simpson, Fig. 1, 2:34-45. Each type member 13
bears a different character to be printed on record strip 16 when hammer 22
strikes the type member. Id. at Fig. 1, 2:39-41, 2:53—65. In one
embodiment,
[T]he resistance to rupture of the type belt 10 is obtained by
providing a composite belt member 14. A composite belt
13
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
member 14, shown in FIG. 4, comprises an inner tension
member 32, and an outer plastic coating 33 bonded to the
surface thereof. The tension member 32 is a thin flexible strip
of high tensile strength, high modulus of elasticity steel. ... In
a preferred embodiment, the plastic coating is either a polyester
film or nylon.
Id. at 3:7—20 (emphasis added). Simpson indicates the rupture resistance
provided by the coating is useful to “withstand^ the rigors of on-the-fly
multiple hammer printing.” Id. at 1:46—50, 1:57—68.
Thus, to the extent Simpson addresses the durability and strength of
its drive band by providing a coating, it is in the context of withstanding
repeated hammer blows. That context is not reasonably related to
Appellants’ problem of providing a coating, such as PTFE plastic, as a “slip
agent” which “facilitates movement” of the drive band to ensure reliable
operation over a long period of time. Spec. 3:21—24. Therefore, we
determine the Examiner has not established Simpson to be analogous art,
and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 as having been obvious over
Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Simpson.
C. §103 Obviousness over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Ellis
(Claims 22, 24, and 25)
Appellants do not argue for the patentability of dependent claims 22,
24, and 25 separately from their respective parent claims. Any such
arguments are therefore waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“any
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal”). For the
reasons provided above, we sustain the rejection of these dependent claims
as having been obvious over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Ellis.
14
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
D. §103 Obviousness over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Lucia
(Claims 26 and 43)
Appellants argue for the patentability of claims 26 and 43 separately
from their respective parent claims 12 and 23 on the sole basis that Lucia is
non-analogous art to the present application. Appeal Br. 13—14, 18.
Claim 26 representatively recites the drive band has a first portion “not
engaged with the pinion [and which] retains a partially cylindrical cross
section,” and a second portion “engaged with the pinion [and which] flattens
into a linear cross section.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appellants’
Specification illustrates such a configuration in Figure 1.
The Examiner finds Lucia discloses “a convex drive band wherein the
second portion of the convex drive band that is engaged with the sprocket
flattens into a linear cross section {Lucia teaches a mechanism to drive the
drive band)” which is “pertinent to the problem of finding a simple
mechanism that transmits a force from a motor for actuating an element.”
Final Act. 9 (emphasis added); Ans. 11.
Appellants argue “[n]one of the problems facing Lucia are reasonably
pertinent to the present inventors,” because Lucia’s problems were
“improving measuring attachments for chain saws which will allow an
operator to saw a particular length of a log.” Appeal Br. 13—14.
Lucia pertinently discloses a drive for linearly moving tape
measure 13 back and forth, with the drive comprising sprocket 35 having
teeth 37 to engage rule 13. Lucia, Figs. 1—4, 1:15—22, 1:47-48, 1:63—66.
When extended, tape 13 retains sufficient rigidity to hold its outer end in
place so tape 13 may perform its measuring function. Id. at Figs. 1—2. We
find Lucia is therefore reasonably pertinent to the present inventors’ problem
15
Appeal 2015-004442
Application 11/593,978
of providing a drive for a linearly movable component, and able to transmit
shearing and tensile forces. Appellants’ argument to the contrary conflates
the two criteria for establishing analogous prior art, by requiring the prior art
reference to be both from the inventors’ field of endeavor and reasonably
related to the inventors’ problem.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 26 and
43 as having been obvious over Pauly, Carpenter, Luck, and Lucia.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 12, 18—20, 23, 27, 32-42, and 44-47 as
unpatentable over Pauly, Carpenter, and Luck is affirmed as to claims 12,
18, 20, 23, 27, 32-42, and 44-47, and reversed as to claim 19.
The rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Pauly, Carpenter,
Luck, and Simpson is reversed.
The rejection of claims 22, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over Pauly,
Carpenter, Luck, and Ellis is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 26 and 43 as unpatentable over Pauly,
Carpenter, Luck, and Lucia is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16