Ex Parte Manion

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2013

12180515 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2013)

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.
12/180,515 07/25/2008 Patrick R Manion 53603 1190
23994 7590 11/27/2013
Hartman Titus
PLC
7114 E. Stetson Drive
Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
EXAMINER
PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2013 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 PATRICK R. MANION
____________

Appeal 2012-000480
Application 12/180,515
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000480
Application 12/180,515

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Patrick R. Manion (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bricher (U.S. 3,917,350; iss. Nov. 4, 1975) and Harrop
(U.S. 6,530,768 B1; iss. Mar. 11, 2003). We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an ice resurfacing machine that
“applies ultrasonic frequency vibration to the ice cutting blade.” Spec. p. 3,
para. [0011]; figs. 1, 9. Claims 1, 10 and 12 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and
recites:
1. An ice resurfacing machine for smoothing an ice
surface of an ice rink, having an ice shaving blade,
positioned to remove a top layer of the ice surface as the
machine moves across the ice surface, that vibrates with
ultrasonic vibrations.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites an ice resurfacing machine including “an
ice shaving blade . . . that vibrates with ultrasonic vibrations.” App. Br.,
Clms. App’x. Independent claim 10 recites a method of resurfacing ice
including the step of “dragging an ultrasonically vibrating ice shaving blade
across the surface.” Id. Independent claim 12 recites a kit for improving
the ice shaving operation of an ice resurfacing machine including “at least
one ultrasonic transducer adapted to be coupled to and induce vibrations in
an ice shaving blade in the machine.” Id. The Examiner found that Bricher
Appeal 2012-000480
Application 12/180,515

3
discloses the limitations of the claims except Bricher “fails to show the blade
vibrating at ultrasonic speeds.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further found that
Harrop teaches that it is well known in the cutting
art to vibrate blade 14 at ultrasonic speeds. Harrop
discloses a machine (figures 1-3) having a plurality
of blades 14 and piezo-electric transducers
(column 4, lines 5-8), the transducers driven by a
ultrasonic generator (column 4, lines 8 and 9).
Further, Harrop discloses each blade vibrating at
an ultrasonic speed (column 3, lines 14-16).
Id. The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the machine of
Bricher with the teaching of Harrop in order to provide an ice resurfacing
machine that could be more effectively and efficiently employed.” Id.
In addition, the Examiner took the position that
the [E]xaminer simply employs the [Harrop]
reference to teach that it is known to vibrate
cutting blades at these speeds and that the benefits
of such is well known and that to vibrate the blade
of Bricher at these speeds would be obvious as
well as the resultant benefits and effects.
Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Rej. 4.
Appellant contends that “there is no rational underpinning to connect
the two references [Bricher and Harrop] and arrive at the claimed
invention.” App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant contends that
the [E]xaminer’s legal conclusion that “it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to provide the
machine of Bricher with the teaching of Harrop in
order to provide an ice resurfacing machine that
could be more effectively and efficiently
employed” is without basis in the record.
Appeal 2012-000480
Application 12/180,515

4
App. Br. 10.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. First, we agree with Appellant
that “the [E]xaminer has not cited [to] a single reference in the Harrop text
to support [the] assertion” that “Harrop teaches [that] the ‘benefits of
[ultrasonic cutting] are well known.’” Reply Br. 4. Further, the Examiner
has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence how modifying
the blade of Bricher’s ice resurfacing device with vibration at ultrasonic
speeds, as taught by Harrop, would provide more effective and efficient
employment of Bricher’s ice resurfacing device. The Examiner’s finding
simply states a conclusion without providing the necessary “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 12 and their
respective dependent claims over Bricher and Harrop.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14.

REVERSED

hh