Milan Bozic

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

13863436 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019)

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.
13/863,436 04/16/2013 Milan Bozic 2178-0713 4188
10800 7590 12/12/2019
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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 MILAN BOZIC
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMESON LEE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, and 16–20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2 and 21 were objected to
as being dependent on a rejected base claim. Claims 9 and 14 were
withdrawn and claim 15 was cancelled.
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Robert
Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, and 16–20 were finally rejected. Final Act. 3,
The rejection of these claims are now on appeal. App. Br. 1.
The invention is directed to a separation tool, such as a saw blade, for
a machine tool. Spec. 1. The Specification describes that the saw blade is
provided with a blade body which is a carrier of the cutting edge. Id. at 2. The
blade body is of wavy form at least in some sections, and the waves in the
blade body are non-constantly formed. Id. at 3. The non-constantly formed
waves are provided to reduce vibrations in the blade body and in the cutting
edge during workpiece machining and to reduce deformations in the blade. Id.
The Specification further describes that the non-constant waves can differ in
wavelength in the plane of the blade body or wave height orthogonal to the
plane of the blade body. Id. at 4.
Claim 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claims 3–8, 10, 12, and 13 each
depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 17–20 each depend
from claim 16. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are reproduced below:
1. A separation tool for a machine tool, comprising:
a blade body with a wavy section extending along a portion
of the blade body, the wavy section having a wave form with a
changing wavelength lying in a plane of the blade body; and
a cutting edge on the blade body, the cutting edge having a
plurality of cutting components directly beneath the wavy section,
each of the plurality of cutting components extending from the
blade body by a constant distance in the plane of the blade body
such that a first cutting component of the plurality of cutting
components directly beneath a first portion of the wavy section
having a first wavelength is the same height as a second cutting
component of the plurality of cutting components directly beneath
a second portion of the wavy section having a second wavelength,
the second wavelength different from the first wavelength,
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

3
wherein the wavy section extends from a tip of the blade body to a
shank of the blade body and the distance between each adjacent
cutting components of the plurality of cutting components is
constant.
11. A machine tool, comprising
a blade body with at least one wavy section, the at least one
wavy section having a wave form with a changing wave height
between a first wave and a second wave along a longitudinal axis
of the blade body and laying orthogonally with respect to the
plane of the blade body; and
a cutting edge on the blade body and substantially parallel
to the axis, wherein the blade body includes a top edge opposite
the cutting edge and the wave form extends from the cutting edge
to the top edge.
16. A separation tool for a machine tool, comprising
a blade body with at least one wavy section extending
along a portion of the blade body from a proximal location to a
distal tip, the at least one wavy section having a wave form with a
changing wavelength lying in a plane of the blade body; and
a plurality of teeth positioned along the wavy section from
the proximal location to the distal tip, wherein each of the
plurality of teeth is immediately adjacent at least one other of the
plurality pf teeth and spaced apart from the at least one other of
the plurality of teeth by a respective distance, wherein the
respective distance is not related to the changing wavelength,
wherein the changing wavelength is sized such that each half-
wave in the at least one wavy section includes at least three of the
plurality of teeth.
Claims 1 and 16 each require a waveform with a changing wavelength
lying in a plane of the blade body. In contrast, claim 11 requires a wave form
with a changing wave height between a first wave and a second wave along a
longitudinal axis of the blade body and laying orthogonally with respect to the
plane of the blade body.
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

4
REFERENCES
Bolinder ’071 US Pat. No. 1,676,071 July 03, 1928
Bolinder ’586 US Pat. No. 1,752,586 Apr. 01, 1930
Tsujimoto US Pat. No. 6,532,852 B1 Mar. 18, 2003
Hessman US Pat. No. 7,578,638 B2 Aug. 25, 2009
Bosch DE 103 00 392 A1 July 22, 2004
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–8, 10, 12, and 13 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Bolinder ’586 and Bosch. Final Act. 3.
Claim 11 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bolinder ’071 and Hessman. Id. at 6–7.
Claims 16–20 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Tsujimoto and Bosch. Id. at 8.
OPINION
A. Rejection of Claims 1, 3–8, 10, 12, and 13
as Obvious over Bolinder ’586 and Bosch
Independent claim 1 recites “a blade body with a wavy section
extending along a portion of the blade body, the wavy section having a wave
form with a changing wavelength lying in a plane of the blade body.” A
first issue for this ground of rejection is whether the wavy section of the
blade body of Bolinder ’586 includes “a wave form with a changing
wavelength lying in a plane of the blade body.”

Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

5
The sole figure of Bolinder ’586 is reproduced below:

The figure shows an elevation view of a saw blade of Bolinder ’586, with a
part broken away to illustrate the cross section. Bolinder ’586, 1:56–60.
A figure on page 4 of the Final Action, is reproduced below:

The figure is a portion of the sole figure of Bolinder ’586, as annotated by
the Examiner. Final Act. 4.
With respect to the annotated figure above, the Examiner identifies on
the blade body a wave form extending from a first wavy section to a second
wavy section, and explains that the wavelength of the wave in the first wavy
section is the length of the first wavy section and the wavelength of the wave
in the second wavy section is the length of the second wavy section. Final
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

6
Act. 4. On that basis, the Examiner concludes that the second wavelength is
different from the first wavelength, because the length of the second wavy
section is shorter than the length of the first wavy section. Id. Thus, the
Examiner concludes the limitation “the wavy section having a wave form
with a changing wavelength lying in a plane of the blade body” is met by the
disclosure of Bolinder ’586. Id. In that context, the Examiner regards the
claimed wavy section as met by the identified first wavy section and the
second identified wavy section collectively. Id.
Appellant argues that Bolinder ’586 does not disclose changing
wavelengths along a blade body as the Examiner asserts. App. Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellant argues as follows:
As is evident from the marked up figure, the Examiner
asserts that a “wavelength” is determined by the distance from
any crest, through the immediately adjacent trough, to the
immediately adjacent crest. A “wavelength”, however, is
defined as “the distance, measured in the direction of propagation
of a wave, between two successive points in the wave that are
characterized by the same phase of oscillation.” (Dictionary.com
Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary, ©
Random House, Inc. 2017, emphasis added). The locations
which the Examiner has identified are not successive points
characterized by the same phase of oscillation.
Id. at 6.
We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner incorrectly
determined wavelength by not starting and stopping the measurement of
wavelength at the same phase of oscillation. The Examiner interpreted a
wave period as that between two successive wave crests. Ans. 10. We agree
with the Examiner that successive crests of a wave share the same phase.
Indeed, a wave portion represented by a crest to trough to crest segment
starts and ends at a crest of the wave and therefore at the same phase of the
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

7
wave. The segment represents one complete wave cycle. The Examiner
compared two consecutive cycles of the wave and showed that the
wavelength for those cycles are different. Final Act. 4, Ans. 10. The
approach is proper notwithstanding Appellant’s identification of other
wavelengths in the sole figure of Bolinder ’586.
Appellant notes that in Bolinder ’586 each tooth of the blade depicted
in the figure includes two blade corrugations 4 and 5. App. Br. 6 (citing
Bolinder ’586, 1:63–69). On that basis, Appellant asserts “[t]hus, contrary
to the argument proposed by the Examiner, the section identified at page 4
of the Office Action as a ‘first wavy section’ is explicitly described by
Bolinder ’586 as including ‘two’ corrugations, not a single corrugation
exhibiting a first wavelength.” (emphasis added) Id. The argument is
misplaced, because the Examiner did not refer to corrugation in his
explanation as noted above and has no need to do so. Claim 1 recites
nothing specific about any corrugation, and the Examiner did not find that a
single corrugation exhibits a first wavelength.
In contrast, Appellant identifies wavelength based on corrugations,
and, more specifically, by type of corrugation. App. Br. 6–9. Appellant
presents two annotated illustrations of the figure of Bolinder ’586:

Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

8
Id. at 7–8. The figures are each a part of the figure of Bolinder ’586, as
annotated by Appellant, where “Type 1” and “Type 2” refer to corrugations.
With respect to the first annotated figure based on Type 1 corrugation,
Appellant identifies a wavelength from the leading edge of the first tooth to
the leading edge of the third tooth, because the Type 1 corrugation at the
front of each tooth changes through, in that length, a full cycle of concave-
convex-concave configuration. Id. With respect to the second annotated
figure based on Type 2 corrugation, Appellant identifies a wavelength from
the trailing edge of the first tooth to the trailing edge of the third tooth,
because the Type 2 corrugation at the rear of each tooth changes through, in
that length, a full cycle of “up-ramp” – “down ramp” – “up-ramp”
configuration. Id. at 8–9.
For either the case of the wavelength arrived at based on “Type 1”
corrugation or the wavelength arrived at based on “Type 2” corrugation,
Appellant notes that it is just a single constant wavelength and therefore
incapable of meeting the claim requirement of a changing wavelength along
a blade body. Id. at 9. Additionally, Appellant explains that a combination
of its two identified waveforms results in a wavelength extending from the
first reference numeral 4, where the trough of “Type 2” corrugation turns
immediately into the crest of “Type 1” corrugation (C1-T2), to the third
“Type 1” crest at the end of the blade where another trough of “Type 2”
corrugation turns immediately into the crest of “Type 1” corrugation (C1-
T2). Id. at 10. Again, Appellant asserts that the wavelength of that
combination waveform nonetheless still is just a single wavelength and still
does not “depict a changing wavelength along a blade body.” Id.
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

9
Appellant’s stated manner of identifying waves and wavelength is not
required by claim 1. Any wave along the blade body constitutes a wave.
Claim 1 is not limited to waves that are tailored or mapped to the
undulations of the same type of corrugation, e.g., Type 1 or Type 2. “[T]he
PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation
during patent prosecution.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Absent claim language
carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on
the specification and prosecution history when those sources expressly
disclaim the broader definition. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Appellant’s
arguments are based on an unduly restrictive reading of the claims. The
Appellant’s manner of identifying waves in the blade body of Bolinder ’586
does not undermine or render unreasonable the Examiner’s identification of
waves and wavelength, as discussed above.
A second issue relating to this ground of rejection centers about the
limitation that the wavy section extends from the tip of the blade body to the
shank of the blade body. The Examiner found that “Bolinder [’586] fails to
disclose the wavy section extends from the tip of the blade body to the shank
of the blade body.” Ans. 3. To make up for that deficiency, the Examiner
reasoned as follows:
However, Bosch teaches a similar blade that is attached to
a reciprocating saw that has a wavy section with a changing
wavelength from one section to another, wherein the blade body
has a shank which is held by the reciprocating saw and a tip at
the distal portion of the blade.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to apply the blade stiffening
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

10
system of Bolinder [’586] to a reciprocating blade having a shank
and a tip, such as Bosch’s or any other reciprocating blade, since
wavy technologies and the benefits thereof are equally
applicable to reciprocating saw blades and endless band saw
blades.
Ans. 3–4 (emphasis added). The statement emphasized above amounts to
the taking of official notice. The Examiner, in the context of the rejection of
claims 16–20 based on Tsujimoto and Bosch which we discuss later, relies
on the same official notice. As we explain in the context of the rejection of
claims 16–20, such manner of taking official notice is inappropriate.
However, such official notice is not necessary to support applying the
teachings of Bolinder ’586 to Bosch’s reciprocating saw, as the Examiner
has proposed. Nothing in Bolinder ’586 indicates that it is disclosing the
blade of a band saw or endless saw. Instead, it provides a generic saw blade
disclosure that is not limited to either saw blades with a shank or saw blades
without a shank. Because of the generic nature of the teachings of Bolinder
’586, because there are only two choices as to whether a saw blade is
provided with a shank, and because one with ordinary skill in the art is a
person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S 398, 420 (2007), one with ordinary skill would have known to
apply the teachings to a saw blade with a shank such as that disclosed in
Bosch. Furthermore, Appellant advances no reasoning explaining why the
features of Bolinder ’586 are only good for saw blades without a shank such
as an endless band saw.
Consequently, we are not persuaded that there is error in the rejection
of claim 1 as unpatentable over Bolinder ’586 and Bosch.
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

11
Each of claims 3–8, 10, 12, and 13 depends, directly or indirectly,
from claim 1. Because Appellant has not argued these claims separately
from claim 1, they stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that there is error in
the rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over Bolinder
’586 and Bosch. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3–8,
10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bolinder ’586
and Bosch.
B. The Rejection of Claim 11 as
Obvious over Bolinder ’071 and Hessman
At issue with respect to claim 11 is the claim limitation “the at least
one wavy section having a wave form with a changing wave height between a
first wave and a second wave along a longitudinal axis of the blade body and
laying orthogonally with respect to the plane of the blade body.” (Emphasis
added). For the rest of the limitations in claim 11, the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Bolinder ’071. Final Act. 7. The Examiner expressly
acknowledges that Bolinder ’071 does not disclose the limitation at issue here.
Id. To meet this limitation, the Examiner “takes official Notice that it is well
known to have teeth that jut outward in progressively greater amounts.” Id.
And the Examiner cites Hessman as an example in support of the official
notice. Id. Hereinafter, we regard and discuss Hessman as representative of
the official notice taken by Examiner. It is important to note, however, that the
official notice does not account for varying wave heights extending
orthogonally relative to the plane of the blade body.
Hessman discloses a cutting tool including a body and a plurality of
cutting inserts arranged in series. Hessman, Abstr. Figure 1 is shown here:
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

12

Figure 1 is a perspective view of a cutting tool according to an embodiment
of Hessman. Hessman, 2:42–43. The tool has basic body 1 and cutting
inserts 2 arranged in series one after another. Id. at 3:1–2. Inserts 2 are each
mounted on insert seat 3. Id. at 3:4–5. Insert seats 3 are spaced apart by
clearance spaces in the form of transverse notches 4. Id. at 3:9–10. Each
cutting insert includes cutting edge 7 which is straight and extends
essentially along the entire length of the cutting insert. Id. at 13–15. Cutting
edges 7 are situated on different levels relative to the basic body. Id. at
3:16–17.
The Examiner determined that Hessman “teaches a blade body with a
cutting edge whose edge height progressively grows (by distance N) along a
longitudinal length of the tool (fig. 2).” Final Act. 7. On that basis, the
Examiner concludes as follows:
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of
Bolinder with the teaching of Hessman such that the height of
the wave teeth extending orthogonally with respect to the plane
of the blade body increased, in order to progressively cut more
away from the kerf as the blade cuts through the work piece.
Id.
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

13
One seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one
reference also must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinnings to combine teachings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner’s reasoning lacks a rational basis.
As is noted by Appellant, the level of cutting edge 7 in Hessman varies in
the plane of the blade body. App. Br. 14–15. In contrast, claim 11 requires
a wave form with a changing wave height laying orthogonally with respect to
the plane of the blade body. The following figure appears on page 15 of the
Appeal Brief:

The illustration contrasts, in a side-by-side view, Figure 4A of Appellant’s
Application with Figure 1 of Hessman. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner refers to modifying the device of Bolinder ’071, in light
of Hessman’s teachings about varying the level of the cutting edge of cutting
inserts, “such that the height of the wave teeth extending orthogonally with
respect to the plane of the blade body increased.” Final Act. 7. However,
the cutting edges in Bolinder ’071 do not extend in a direction orthogonal to
the plane of a blade body. Instead, they extend within the plane of the blade
body as shown by Figures 1 and 2 of Bolinder ’071 reproduced below:
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

14

Figures 1 shows a side view of a saw blade according to Bolinder ’071.
Bolinder ’071, 1:33–36. Figure 2 shows the same saw blade but from a
bottom perspective viewed from the toothed edge. Id. at 1:36–38.
Thus, a straightforward application of the teaching of Hessman in the
device of Bolinder ’071 would not yield varying wave height of Bolinder
’071 orthogonal to the plane of the blade body. To the extent the Examiner
contends that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
to make the blade body of Bolinder ’071 curvy and further to make the wave
heights, orthogonal to the plane of the blade body, varying, that teaching
does not stem from Hessman or the Examiner’s statement of official notice.
Rather, on this record, we find that it stems from inappropriate hindsight
based on Appellant’s own disclosure. Although the Examiner asserts (Final
Act. 7) the reason to make the modification is “to progressively cut more
away from the kerf as the blade cuts through the work piece,” the Examiner
has not provided any supporting evidence to indicate that the outcome is
beneficial or desirable, or that it can be achieved in the manner recited by
claim 11.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bolinder ’071 and Hessman.

Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

15
C. The Rejection of Claims 16–20
as Obvious over Tsujimoto and Bosch
Like claim 1, claim 16 requires “a wavy section having a wave form
with a changing wavelength lying in a plane of the blade body.” Also, like
claim 1 reciting that the wavy section extends from a tip of the blade body to
a shank of the blade body, claim 16 recites the wavy section to be “from a
proximal location to a distal tip.” Unlike claim 1, however, claim 16 recites
that “each half-wave in the at least one wavy section includes at least three
of the plurality of teeth.” The Examiner found that Tsujimoto discloses all
limitations of claim 16 except for a plurality of teeth extending along a wavy
section that is from a “proximal location to a distal tip.” Tsujimoto discloses
a band saw, not a reciprocating saw with a shank. Tsujimoto, Abstr.
To make up for the deficiency of Tsujimoto, the Examiner takes
official notice and cites Bosch to support the taking of that official notice:
Examiner takes Official Notice that the teachings of
Tsujimoto’s bandsaw are applicable to reciprocating saw
blades. For example, Bosch teaches a similar blade that is
attached to a reciprocating saw that has a wavy section with a
changing wavelength from one section to another, wherein the
blade body has a shank which is held by the reciprocating saw
and a tip at the distal portion of the blade.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to have applied the blade
structure of [Tsujimoto] to a reciprocating blade having a shank
and a tip, such as Bosch’s or any other reciprocating blade, since
wavy technologies and the benefits thereof are equally
applicable to reciprocating saw blades and endless band saw
blades.
Final Act. 9 (emphases added).
The Examiner’s taking of official notice in the manner quoted above
is wholly inappropriate. First, the Examiner is vague in identifying the
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

16
specific teaching at issue that is subject to the official notice. Second, the
statement of official notice is excessively broad. Third, the citation to Bosch
as an example does cure the vagueness or over-breadth problem, because
Bosch does not support the proposition that all teachings of Tsujimoto’s
bandsaw are applicable to reciprocal saw blade with a shank. Fourth, the
matter being officially noticed is not that which is capable of such instant
and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. See In re Ahlert,
424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(Ninth Edition, Revision 08.2017, Last Revised January 2018), Section
2144.03 A. Whether a feature from a band saw is applicable to a
reciprocating saw depends on a multitude of factors, depending on the
feature of the band saw and the context or environment in which the
reciprocating saw is used. Too many variables are in play for an application
of official notice.
The same is true with respect to the Examiner’s statement that “wavy
technologies and the benefits thereof are equally applicable to reciprocating
saw blades and endless band saw blades.” Final Act. 9. That is essentially
another official notice taken by the Examiner. It is even more misplaced
than the first official notice statement discussed above, because, here, the
statement is not limited to Tsujimoto’s band saw teachings but covers all
teachings of all band saws. The variations and uncertainties are even more.
It is not a matter capable of instantaneous and unquestionable demonstration
that all wave-related features beneficial for a band saw are equally beneficial
for a reciprocating saw, and vice versa. Even Bosch’s wavy reciprocating
saw blade does not include all wave-related features of Tsujimoto’s wavy
band saw. See Tsujimoto’s Figs. 1A and 1B and Bosch’s Fig. 4. Note that
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

17
Tsujimoto’s undulations are in the plane of the blade body, and Bosch’s
undulations are orthogonal to the plane of the blade body.
Figures 1A and 1B of Tsujimoto and Figure 4 of Bosch are presented
below:

Figures 1A and 1B of Tsujimoto show a front and bottom view, respectively,
of Tsujimoto’s band saw. Fujimoto, 6:8–10. Figure 4 of Bosch shows a
fragment of Bosch’s saw blade revealing the waveform, wavelength,
amplitude, and the cutting teeth. Bosch 5. Tsujimoto and Bosch show
waves undulating in different directions.
In response to Appellant’s argument that the benefits derived from
Tsujimoto’s wavy back surface 5 stems from the fact that Tsujimoto’s back
surface 5 rides against backup guides, and that such guides are absent in the
case of Bosch, the Examiner asserts that although Bosch includes no such
guide, there are reciprocating saws where a guide wheel abuts the back side
of the reciprocating blade, citing US Pat. Pub. 2003/0051593, published
Mar. 20, 2003 (“Kocher”). Ans. 13. The response of the Examiner further
supports our determination that the official notice asserted by the Examiner
is inappropriate. The Examiner’s need to switch to a different reciprocating
saw disclosed by another prior art reference, i.e., Kocher, confirms that
Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

18
whether band saw teachings are applicable to reciprocating saws depends on
the facts, specifically the teaching at issue and the particular reciprocating
saw.
Further, to the extent the Examiner in the Answer relied on the
specific teachings of Kocher in combination with the teachings of
Tsujimoto, that is inappropriate, because Kocher is not named in the ground
of rejection. The final rejection of claims 16–20 is based on Tsujimoto and
Bosch, not Tsujimoto and Kocher. Final Act. 8; Ans. 4. Accordingly, we
need not consider Appellant’s arguments in the Reply addressing the
Examiner’s application of Kocher.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner did not articulate reasoning
with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Tsujimoto and
Bosch. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Claims 17–20 each depend from claim 16 and thus incorporate all the
limitations of claim 16. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis and
reasoning with respect to claim 16 carry through to each of claims 17–20.
For reasons discussed above in the context of claim 16, the Examiner did not
articulate reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of
Tsujimoto and Bosch. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 17–20.

Appeal 2018-000579
Application 13/863,436

19
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 10,
12, 13
103 Bolinder ’586 and
Bosch
1, 3–8,
10, 12, 13

11 103 Bolinder ’071 and
Hessman
11
16–20 103 Tsujimoto and
Bosch
16–20

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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART