Ex Parte Golovashchenko et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2007

09927281 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SERGEY FEDOROVICH GOLOVASHCHENKO,
LAURENT BERNARD CHAPPUIS,
GUENTHER BAUMANN, RUDY REGELIN,
GARY MASAK, RICHARD R. WEIR,
and WILLIAM STEVEN STEWART
________________

Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281
Technology Center 3700
________________

Decided: May 15, 2007
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-4, 12, and 13.
Claims 1 and 12 are illustrative:
1. An apparatus for trimming scrap from a blank comprising:

Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

2
a steady blade;

a clamping pad securing the blank to said steady blade;

a moving blade movable past said steady blade for trimming the
blank, said moving blade moving substantially perpendicular to an upper
surface of said blank;

a radius formed on the leading edge of said moving blade adapted to
reduce defects in the blank associated with the trimming process; and

a support element in communication with the scrap and adapted to
reduce defects in the blank associated with the trimming process, said
support element moving substantially perpendicular to said upper surface.

12. A method of reducing the production of defects during trimming
operations comprising:

holding a blank between a steady blade and a clamping pad;

moving a moving blade past said steady blade to trim scrap off of said
blank, said moving blade moving perpendicular to an upper surface of said
blank;

supporting said scrap to reduce defects in said blank associated with
the trimming process;

keeping said scrap substantially parallel to said scrap’s original
orientation during the trimming process; and

reducing the strain concentration caused by said moving blade on said
blank through the use of a radius formed on the leading edge of said moving
blade.

Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

3
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Madsen US 3,167,985 Feb. 2, 1965
Kohama US 4,660,401 Apr. 28, 1987
Li US 5,820,999 Oct. 13, 1998
Bennett US 6,370,931 B2 Apr. 16, 2002
Hambli et al. (hereafter “Hambli”), “Finite element modeling of the sheet
metal blanking operations with experimental verification,” 102 Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 257-65 (2000)
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus and method
for trimming scrap from a blank. The apparatus comprises, inter alia, steady
and moving blades for trimming the blank wherein a radius is provided on
the leading edge of the moving blade to reduce defects in the blank that are
associated with the trimming process. The apparatus also comprises a
support element for the trimmed scrap that moves substantially
perpendicular to the upper surface of the blank.
Appealed claims 1-4, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kohama. Claims 1-3, 12, and 13 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Madsen. In
addition, the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1-4, 12, and 13 over Kohama in view of Hambli;
(b) claims 1-3, 12, and 13 over Madsen in view of Hambli;
(c) claims 1-4, 12, and 13 over Kohama in view of Bennett;
(d) claims 1-3, 12, and 13 over Madsen in view of Bennett;
Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

4
(e) claims 1-4, 12, and 13 over Kohama in view of Li; and
(f) claims 1-3, 12, and 13 over Madsen in view of Li.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the § 102 rejections over Kohama and Madsen. As
appreciated by the Examiner, both Kohama and Madsen, although directed
to trimming apparatus comprising steady and moving blades, are silent with
respect to a radius being provided on the leading edge of the moving blade.
However, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination
that Hambli evidences that all cutting blades, even new ones, possess a
radius on its leading edge. In particular, Hambli discloses that the cutting
edge radius for a new blade is 0.01 mm.
Appellants’ principal contention is that “the term radius when utilized
in the present application has a definition of a radius greater than 0.1 mm”
(Reply Br. 2, second para.). Appellants maintain that during prosecution of
the present application they have repeatedly made a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer that the claimed radius must be greater than 0.1 mm. However, a
fundamental principle of patent jurisprudence is that limitations may not be
read into a claim from the specification or elsewhere. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Omega Eng’g Inc. v. Raytek
Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

5
Corp., 334 F.3d 314, 67 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cited by
Appellants, does not overturn or erode this well-settled principle. Omega
Eng’g involves patent infringement and the interpretation of claim language
under the presumption of validity, but in no way stands for the proposition
that an applicant’s argument may place a numerical limitation on a claimed
term having no quantitative limits. Indeed, Appellants’ own specification is
not so limiting. To wit, the Specification discloses that “[a]lthough a blank
thickness 27 and radius 24 have been described, it should be understood that
a vast array of radii can be used in conjunction with differing blank
thickness and blank materials may be utilized” (Specification 7:13-17).
Hence, inasmuch as it is undisputed that the leading edge of the moving
blades of Kohama and Madsen possess a radius, both references describe a
radius within the broad scope of the appealed claims. As for the claim 1
recitation “adapted to reduce defects in the blank,” the claim language is
relative in nature with no expressed standard for comparison and, therefore,
does not serve to distinguish over the inherent radii of the moving blades of
Kohama and Madsen.
Concerning the § 103 rejections of Kohama in view of Hambli and
Madsen in view of Hambli, it logically follows that we concur with the
Examiner that Kohama and Madsen support a conclusion of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter, with or without the additional motivation
provided by Hambli. Manifestly, anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Hambli establishes the
Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

6
obviousness of employing a cutting edge having a radius of 0.01 mm in
order to reduce cutting defects. Also, as explained by the Examiner, Hambli
provides evidence that the cutting edges of Kohama and Madsen, after some
use, would have a radius of 0.2 mm, which value is within the greater than
0.1 mm asserted by Appellants for the claimed radius.
We also agree with the Examiner that Bennett and Li provide
additional evidence that it was known in the art of cutting or trimming
blanks to employ a cutting edge having a radius. As set forth by the
Examiner, Bennett expressly states that “[t]he provision of a radiused or
rounding on the operating edges of the die 1 is crucial to the provision of a
smooth edged stamping” (col. 8, ll. 40-42). We find no merit in Appellants’
argument that Bennett teaches a punch apparatus, not a trimming apparatus,
and that Bennett teaches no radius on the moving portions of the apparatus.
We concur with the Examiner that the claimed trimming apparatus and
operation does not exclude punching operations from the scope of the
appealed claims. Appellants have not established on this record any
distinction in the art between trimming an endpiece off a blank and trimming
the periphery away from a punched area. While Appellants maintain that
trimming and punching operations involve different parameters, Appellants
have proffered no objective evidence which elevates the assertion beyond
the status argument of counsel. Moreover, we emphasize that the claimed
trimming apparatus and method is not limited to cutting off an endpiece.
Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

7
Also, we find no error in the Examiner’s rationale that it is of no
moment whether the radius is provided on the moving or steady blade. It
would seem, absent evidence to the contrary, that “only the relative motion
between the two blades has any bearing on the quality of the cut” (Answer
13, penultimate para.). At any rate, for the reasons set forth above, it is
reasonable to conclude that the moving blade of Bennett inherently
possesses a radius.
Concerning the Li disclosure, Appellants have not refuted the
Examiner’s factual finding that the reference, at figure 10, demonstrates that
the quality of the cut improves with a larger blade radius (Answer 15,
second para.).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Kohama supports the blank
rather than the claimed scrap, we concur with the Examiner that “what one
calls the blank and what one calls the scrap is a matter of viewer
perspective” (Answer 15, last full sentence). Certainly, it has often been said
that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. In addition, we agree with
the Examiner that Appellants’ argument is not germane to the apparatus
claims on appeal.
Appellants also make the argument that “Madsen fails to insure
perpendicular movement as both the scrap and the support move in an
angular fashion relative to the upper surface” (principal Br. 11). However,
we agree with the Examiner that figure 2 of Madsen rebuts this argument.
Also, Madsen specifically discloses that “[w]hen the platen 10 is moved
Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281

8
upwardly after the shearing operation, the rubber strippers will expand
upwardly and strip the severed workpiece from the cavity defined by the
steel cutting blades 16” (col. 2, ll. 25-30).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED

clj

Artz & Artz, P.C.
28333 Telegraph Road, Suite 250
Southfield, MI 48034