Hunter HD, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020005410 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
16/148,081 10/01/2018 Michael Hunter HUNT 200002US02 9447
27885 7590 05/26/2021
FAY SHARPE LLP
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
EXAMINER
KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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):
uspto@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HUNTER and JONATHAN STEELE
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, 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 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23, and 27–33.
See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HUNTER HD, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a torque reducing apparatus and method.
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A bow comprising:
(a) a riser comprising a pair of limbs having a string
assembly operably coupled to each one of the pair of limbs, the
riser with the pair of limbs operable to maintain a tension in the
string assembly; and
(b) a handle; and
(c) a ball joint maintained in the handle and operatively
joining and rotatably affixing the handle to the riser along two
degrees of rotation including
(i) a first, pitch axis of rotation that extends parallel
to the string assembly; and
(ii) a second, yaw axis of rotation that is
perpendicular to the pitch axis and parallel to the handle;
wherein the bow is configured to limit rotation about a
third, roll axis that is mutually perpendicular to both the pitch
and yaw axes.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lee ’944 US 2005/0172944 A1 Aug. 11, 2005
Lee ’192 US 2011/0101192 A1 May 5, 2011
Chirico US 2014/0238372 A1 Aug. 28, 2014

OBJECTION AND REJECTIONS
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

3
Claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23, and 27–33 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 3.2
Claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 33 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chirico and Lee ’192.
Final Act. 4.
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chirico, Lee ’192, and Lee ’944. Final Act. 12.

OPINION
§ 112(b) Rejection of claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23, and 27–33
The Examiner determines that Appellant has not provided sufficient
disclosure to clearly identify the “pitch axis,” the “yaw axis,” and the “roll
axis,” which appear in each of the independent claims before us, i.e., claims
7, 16, and 33, leading to a lack of clarity that renders the claims indefinite.
Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges the “pitch
angle,” the “yaw angle,” and the “roll angle” are described in the
Specification, but reasons that description of the angles does not correspond
to sufficient disclosure of the axes recited in the claims, rendering the claims
unclear. Ans. 3–4.

2 Page 3 of the Final Office Action dated August 21, 2019 indicates claims
1–10 are rejected under 112(b). However, only claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–
23, and 27–33 are addressed in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner’s
Answer. See Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Ans. 3–4. Appellant’s amendment
cancelling claims 1–6 was submitted June 5, 2019. The Examiner’s Final
Office Action provides no indication that entry of this amendment was
denied. See generally, Final Act. For purposes of this Appeal, inclusion of
claims 1–6 under the 112(b) rejection is not addressed and is considered an
inadvertent typographical error by the Examiner.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

4
Appellant argues that the axes are identified in paragraph 37 of the
Specification, which provides: “reference characters 46, 48, and 50
represent the three axes disposed at right angles in three dimensional
coordinate system.” Appeal Br. 7. Furthermore, Appellant argues that there
is sufficient correlation disclosed within the Specification between the pitch,
yaw, and roll axes and the pitch, yaw, and roll angles to provide a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
ascertain the location of the axes recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. In determining the clarity of
claim language, the claim must be read in light of the Specification. In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Appellant’s
Specification,3 with the aid of Figures 4, 5, and 7, as originally filed,
provides sufficient clarity to one skilled in the art that the three axes exist
about respective ones of the three angles, yaw, pitch, and roll. Accordingly,
the § 112(b) rejection is improper. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 7, 16, and 33 for indefiniteness, as
well as the rejection of those claims argued therewith or based on
dependency therefrom.

Drawing Objection
The Examiner objects to the drawings on the ground that “[t]he
drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the first pitch axis, second yaw axis and a third roll axis must be
shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).” Final Act. 2.

3 Spec. p. 11, para. 37.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

5
Ordinarily, an objection is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181,
and a rejection is appealable to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
However, where an Examiner’s objections “relate, at least indirectly, to
matters involving the rejection of claims” (In re Hengehold, 440 F. 2d
1395, 1404 (CCPA 1971)), are “determinative of the rejection,” or
“require[] the exercise of technical skill and legal judgment in order to
evaluate the facts presented, interpret the requirements of [patent laws] and
weigh the facts against those requirements . . .[an Examiner’s objection
may be] an ‘adverse decision’ as to be properly reviewable by the Board of
Appeals under 35 U.S.C. § [6][4].” In re Searles, 422 F. 2d 431, 434–435
(CCPA 1970).
In this case, as discussed above, Appellant’s Specification, with the
aid of Figures 4, 5, and 7, as originally filed, provides sufficient clarity to
one skilled in the art that the three axes recited exist about respective ones of
the three angles, yaw, pitch, and roll. To the extent that the Examiner’s
objection to the drawings in the Final Office Action turns on the same
issue(s) as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), failing to appreciate the
relationship between angles and their respective axes, our decision with
respect to the rejection is dispositive as to the corresponding objection.

§ 103 rejection of claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23, 27, 28, 30, and 32
Claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23, 27, 28, 30, and 32, which are subject
to the rejection based on Chirico and Lee ’192 are argued as a group (Appeal
Br. 8–11), for which we select claim 7 as representative under 37 C.F.R.

4 Formerly § 7
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

6
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address each of Appellant’s arguments in turn below.
Additionally, Appellant presents substantive arguments for claim 33 (Appeal
Br. 11), which we discuss separately below.
The Examiner relies on the embodiment depicted in Figures 12–15 of
Chirico as disclosing the basic structure of claim 7. Final Act. 4. Chirico is
used by the Examiner as a base reference and teaches a bow 101 having a
handle 201 that is hingedly attached to the riser 102. Chirico, para. 38. Lee
’192, used as a secondary reference, teaches a ball joint assembly 14 joining
and rotatably affixing an archery bow 180 to a base 142. Lee ’192, para. 67.
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chirico’s hinge
connection5 with Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14. Final Act. 5.
Identifying the roll axis as being centered along Lee ’192’s slots 19, the
Examiner indicates that both Lee ’192’s and Appellant’s ball joints have
similar constructions and, as such, have the same limited rotation about the
roll axis. Ans. 3. As a result, the Examiner reasons that incorporating Lee
’192’s ball joint assembly 14 in Chirico’s hinge connection would have
resulted in subject matter meeting the limitation “the bow is configured to
limit rotation about a third, roll axis that is mutually perpendicular to both
the pitch and yaw axes”6 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims. Ans. 3; see also Appeal Br. 14 (Claim 7).
Appellant asserts that the inclusion of slots 19 in Lee ’192 permits a
greater degree of rotation about the roll axis than Appellant’s claimed

5 See Chirico, para. 38 (“The arms 1303 are hingedly attached to the riser
102 by means well known in the art”).
6 Claim 7, lines 12–13 and Claim 13, lines 15–16.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

7
invention. Appeal Br. 8–9; see also Reply Br. 3. The basis for Appellant’s
assertion is that the ball joint assembly 14 of Lee ’192 has a greater degree
of rotation about the roll axis than about Lee’s pitch and yaw axes. Appeal
Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3. In essence, the issue raised by Appellant is
whether the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language is too broad.
During patent examination, “claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.” Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2111. In this instance, it may be true that
Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14 has a greater degree of rotation about the
roll axis than the pitch and yaw axes; however, the claim language only
requires that “the bow is configured to limit rotation about a third, roll axis
that is mutually perpendicular to both the pitch and yaw axes,” without
specifying any particular degree to which “rotation” must be “limit[ed].”
Appeal Br. 14 (Claim 7). Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Here, the claim does not recite language specifying the degree to which
rotation of the ball joint about the third, roll axis must be limited. This is
true whether considered in the absolute or in relation to the other, pitch and
yaw, axes. Because rotation about the roll axis is “limit[ed]” by the bottom
of slots 19 in Lee ’192 to approximately one hundred eighty degrees, we
agree with the Examiner that Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14 “limit[s]
rotation about a third, roll axis,” thus meeting the claim language. See Final
Act. 5; see also Ans. 5 (both citing, inter alia, Lee ’192, para. 45); Appeal
Br. 14 (Claim 7).
Appellant next asserts that there is no motivation to replace Chirico’s
hinged connection with Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14. Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

8
The basis for Appellant’s assertion is that replacing the hinged connection
with a ball joint assembly would change the principle operation of Chirico.
Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner correctly determines that the principle operation of
Chirico is to permit adjustability between handle 201 and riser 102. Ans. 6.
Utilizing ball joint 14 of Lee ’192 increases the adjustability between handle
201 and riser 102 of Chirico in furtherance of this goal. Ans. 6. In
particular, one of the principle objects of Chirico’s invention is to provide an
adjustable bow and sling combination. Chirico, para. 7. Replacing
Chirico’s hinged connection with Lee’s ball joint assembly 14 provides
greater adjustability because ball joint assembly 14 can rotate about three
axes as opposed to rotating about a single axis, as is the case of the hinged
connection. Chirico, para. 7. Therefore, replacing the hinged connection of
Chirico with ball joint assembly 14 of Lee ’192 does not change Chirico’s
principle operation. See Ans. 6–8.
Further, Chirico does not regard the specific hinge illustrated as
critical to Chirico’s principle of operation because Chirico suggests
alternatives could be employed and refers to the hinge in broad generic
terms: “the handle 201 . . . arms 1303 are hingedly attached to the riser 102
by means well known in the art” or “by adjustable means.” Chirico, para. 38
(emphasis added).7 Ball joint assembly 14 of Lee ’192 is such an adjustable
means. Lee ’192, para. 19. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the hinged

7 Chirico’s failure to provide a reference character for the hinged connection
also suggests the specific means of connection illustrated is not as essential
as the connection’s capacity for adjustment.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

9
connection of Chirico with ball joint assembly 14 of Lee ’192 as both
devices employ adjustable means used to attach two elements. See Final
Act. 4–6; see also Ans. 6–8.
Appellant argues that the Chirico/Lee ’192 combination does not
result in Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14 being “maintained in the handle”
of Chirico 201 as claim 7 requires. Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Reply Br. 4.
Because Lee ’192’s Figure 11 illustrates ball joint assembly 14 as being
located beneath bow 180, Appellant argues that ball joint assembly 14 must
be similarly located on bow 101 of Chirico, resulting in the ball joint being
beneath handle 201. Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant
asserts that the location of Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14 beneath
Chirico’s handle 201 would not result in the ball joint being “maintained in
the handle” as required by claim 7. Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Reply Br. 4.
In contrast, the Examiner initially and correctly points out that bodily
incorporation of the prior art is not necessary in an obviousness analysis8
and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not locate the ball
joint assembly 14 beneath handle 201 of Chirico. Ans. 8–9.
In the Examiner’s rejection, the adjustable means is a hinged
connection in Chirico (Fig. 13) and a ball joint assembly 14 in Lee ’192
(Fig. 11). Final Act. 4–5. In particular, as seen in Chirico’s Figure 13, the
hinged connection is located between handle 201 and riser 102.

8 Ans. 8 (citing In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); accord
In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established
that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple
references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”).
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

10
Additionally, as seen in Lee ’192’s Figure 11,9 ball joint assembly 14 is
located beneath bow 180 and the bow’s handle and above locking handle 55.
However, “handle” 55 in Lee ’192 serves a very different purpose, locking
the ball joint (Lee ’192, paras. 45–47), in comparison to Chirico’s handle
201, aiming Chirico’s bow (see Chirico, Fig. 12). Moreover, the location of
the handle of Lee ’192’s bow 180 (Appeal Br. 10) is not instructive as to the
location of Chirico’s handle 201 because Chirico’s goal is to reorient the
bow, along with the area that would be the traditional handle of the bow
(unlabeled, depicted between arms 1303 in Chirico Figure 13), to be held in
a slingshot-like orientation by handle 201 (shown orthogonal to the handle
area of the bow itself in Figure 13). Chirico, paras. 4, 9, 10. Although the
adjustable means of Chirico and Lee ’192 are located in two distinct
locations in relation to their respective handles, when Lee ’192’s ball joint
14 is used for adjusting the position of the bow with respect to handle 201 in
Chirico, as the Examiner proposes, it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to place Lee ’192’s ball joint assembly 14 in
the location already occupied by the hinged connection in Chirico. Such a
substitution would result in Lee ’192’s ball joint 14 being located in or
between arms 1303 of forked portion 1302 of Chirico’s handle 201.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s proposed modification would yield a ball joint
that is “maintained in the handle.” See Ans. 8–9. As the Examiner is
proposing to modify Chirico with Lee ’192’s teachings, Appellant’s

9 In some of Lee ’192’s Figures, including Figure 11, handle 55 is
mislabeled with reference numeral 57, which refers to the plunger (best
illustrated in Lee ’192’s Figure 2).
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

11
argument that moving Lee ’192’s ball joint would hinder the operation of
Lee ’192 (Appeal Br. 10) is inapposite.
Appellant asserts that “there is no disclosure or suggestion in Chirico
or Lee [’192] that replacing Chirico’s hinge joint on top of a handle with
Lee[ ’192]’s ball joint while further modifying the combined device such
that the ball joint is located in the handle would improve accuracy.” Appeal
Br. 10–11 (referencing the Examiner’s statements at page 5 of the Final
Office Action).
The Examiner’s position is not accurately characterized by Appellant.
Appeal Br. 10–11; see also Final Act. 5. The Examiner reasonably finds
that Lee ’192 “provide[s] a ball joint assembly” that “allow[s] [a] work
support device to be easily moved to, and locked in, a number of attitudes.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ’192 para. 12).10 Additionally, the Examiner reasons
that “utilizing such [a] ball-to-socket support [device] within Chirico’s
weapon (archery) while in use,” would provide one the ability to “position . .
. the [modified] riser-to-handle [of Chirico] in any desire[d] location [to]
[e]nsure higher accuracy of shooting of a projectile therefrom.” The ability
to fine tune the weapon’s orientation for a particular user would seem to
encourage accuracy. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or
argument apprising us of error in the Examiner’s findings or stated reasoning
in this regard. Appeal Br. 10–11. The specific location of the modified joint
is a construction detail that would have been obvious, not for accuracy, but
based on the location of Chirico’s original joint as discussed above.

10 The Examiner cites to paragraph 14 of Lee ’192. Final Act. 5. We
consider this an inadvertent typographical error by the Examiner.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

12
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Chirico and Lee ’192, as well as the
rejection of those claims argued therewith or based on dependency
therefrom.

§ 103 rejection of claim 33
Appellant asserts that the limitation “wherein the top end of the
handle comprises raised, curved lateral side portions” has not been addressed
by the Examiner in the rejection of independent claim 33. Appeal Br. 11;
see also Reply Br. 5. “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when
determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” MPEP
§ 2143.03. “[T]he precise language . . . that ‘(a) person shall be entitled to a
patent unless,’ concerning novelty and unobviousness, clearly places a
burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.” In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967). A rejection must be set forth
in sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice
requirement of § 132, such as by identifying where or how each limitation of
the rejected claims is met by the prior art references. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (“The
pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained.”). It
is neither our place, nor Appellant’s burden, to speculate as to the basis for
rejecting claims. In re Stepan, 660 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
In the rejection, the Examiner indicates that claim 33 is similar to
claim 7 and, as a result, is rejected under the Chirico/Lee ’192 combination.
Final Act. 12. The Examiner fails to address the limitation “wherein the top
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

13
end of the handle comprises raised, curved lateral side portions” of claim 33.
Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 10; Appeal Br. 19 (claim 33). As such, we
agree with Appellant that claim 33 has not been adequately addressed by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 33 as being unpatentable
over Chirico and Lee ’192.

§ 103 rejection of claims 29 and 31
Appellant’s contentions for claims 29 and 31 rest on the same
arguments discussed above for claims 7 and 13. Appeal Br. 11–12. As we
find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 13 as being
unpatentable over Chirico and Lee ’192 for the reasons discussed above, we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 29 and 31 as being
unpatentable over Chirico, Lee ’192, and Lee ’944.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23,
and 27–33 is reversed. The Examiner’s objection to the drawings on similar
grounds is also reversed.
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 7–10, 12–16, 18, 21–23,
and 27–32 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 33 is reversed.
Appeal 2020-005410
Application 16/148,081

14
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–10, 12–
16, 18, 21–
23, 27–33
112(b) Indefiniteness 7–10, 12–
16, 18, 21–
23, 27–33
7–10, 12–
16, 18, 21–
23, 27, 28,
30, 32, 33
103 Chirico, Lee ’192 7–10, 12–
16, 18, 21–
23, 27, 28,
30, 32
33
29, 31 103 Chirico, Lee ’192,
Lee ’944
29, 31
Overall
Outcome
7–10, 12–
16, 18, 21–
23, 27–32
33

RESPONSE
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 IN PART