Stasiewicz, Paul H. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2020

14096689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020)

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.
14/096,689 12/04/2013 Paul H. Stasiewicz SDT 362A 2057
27630 7590 03/10/2020
SawStop Holding LLC
11555 SW Myslony Street
Tualatin, OR 97062
EXAMINER
SWINNEY, JENNIFER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2020 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 PAUL H. STASIEWICZ and JOHN P. NENADIC
____________

Appeal 2019-0052361
Application 14/096,689
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our Decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 4,
2013), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 26, 2018), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 14, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed July 16, 2018) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Oct. 27,
2017).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies SawStop Holding, LLC, formerly
known as SD3, LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005236
Application 14/096,689

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an insert for a table saw
equipped with a dust collection system. Spec. 3:20–23, 4:8–10.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. It is representative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. An insert for use with a table saw having a blade and a
dust shield, the insert comprising:
a main body having a front edge, a rear region, an upper
surface, an underside, and a slot through which the blade can
extend, where the slot has a width and a length, where the
length of the slot is greater than the width, and where the slot
divides the main body into first and second sides; and
a channel in the underside of the main body into which
the dust shield can extend when the insert is installed in the
table saw so that the dust shield can overlap with the main
body, where the channel extends continuously across the
underside of the main body from the first side to the second
side, and where the channel is positioned between the front
edge and the slot so that the channel does not intersect with the
slot.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chuang (US 2008/0156162 A1, pub. July 3, 2008) and Gass (US
2005/0166736 A1, pub. Aug. 4, 2005).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines that a combination of Chuang and Gass
would have resulted in an insert having a channel that “extends continuously
across the underside of the main body from the first side to the second side”
and “is positioned between the front edge and the slot so that the channel
Appeal 2019-005236
Application 14/096,689

3
does not intersect with the slot,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2, 4 (citing
Chuang, Fig. 4; Gass ¶ 255). We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that the Examiner erred in making this determination. See Appeal Br. 3–6;
see also Reply Br. 2–5.
Chuang describes known table sawing machine 10 having a motor and
other members installed on one side of saw blade 12, under saw blade
protecting plate 14. Chuang ¶ 6, Fig. 4. Saw blade protecting plate 14 has a
plurality of recesses 142 formed on its underside for facilitating assembly of
the motor and other members. Id. Recesses 142 having various shapes and
sizes are formed on either side of lengthwise slot 141 for a saw blade 12.
See id. at Fig. 4; see also id. ¶ 5, Fig. 3.
Gass describes insert 510 for a table saw having a left tilting blade
that includes right portion 650 and left portion 652. Gass ¶¶ 106, 241, 243,
255, Fig. 97. The underside of right portion 650 includes recessed section
702 to provide clearance for the blade when the blade tilts, and recessed area
704 to provide clearance for an arbor, blade washer, and nut when the blade
is fully elevated. Id. ¶ 255, Fig. 97. The underside of left portion 652
includes recess 706 to provide clearance for the arbor block when the blade
is fully elevated. Id. Gass shows recessed sections 702 and 704 disposed on
either side of slot 656 for a blade, i.e., on right and left portions 650, 652.
Id. at Fig. 97; see also id. ¶¶ 246, 255.
The Examiner finds that Chuang teaches a plurality of channels
(recesses 142) that extend across the underside of the main body from the
first side to the second side. Final Act. 2–3 (providing an annotated version
of Chuang’s Fig. 4). The Examiner acknowledges that Chuang’s plurality of
channels extending from the first side to the second side are not a continuous
Appeal 2019-005236
Application 14/096,689

4
channel. Id. at 4. And the Examiner relies on Gass to cure the deficiency.
See id. In particular, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to modify Chuang’s plurality of channels to beone continuous
channel, as purportedly taught by Gass, as an art-recognized equivalent for
fabricating a channel. Id.
The difficulty with the Examiner’s analysis, as pointed out by
Appellant (Appeal Br. 4), is that Gass also fails to teach a channel that
extends continuously from the first side to the second side, as recited in
claim 1. Instead, Gass teaches two, separate recesses on opposite sides of
the blade slot. See Gass, Fig. 97. Like the configuration in Chuang, Gass’s
recesses could not be modified to extend continuously from the first side to
the second side due to the blade slot separating the recesses.
The Examiner also acknowledges that Chuang does not teach that the
channel is positioned between the front edge and the slot so that the channel
does not intersect with the slot, as required by claim 1. See Final Act. 5
(“Chuang does not teach [that] the plurality of channels do not intersect with
the slot.”). However, the Examiner finds that Gass teaches that the slot “can
be various lengths, including having a shorter length.” Id. (citing Gass
¶ 246). And the Examiner concludes that shortening Chuang’s slot would
“lead to the channel being positioned between the front edge and the slot so
that the channel does not intersect with the slot.” Id.
Yet, as pointed out by Appellant (Appeal Br. 4–5), Chuang describes
that the motor and other members are placed to the side of the blade, and
that the plurality of recesses are needed for facilitating assembly of the
motor and other members. See Chuang ¶ 6. Gass, as described above,
teaches similar geometries with respect to the blade and recesses. See Gass
Appeal 2019-005236
Application 14/096,689

5
¶ 255. Therefore, even if Chuang’s slot were shortened, as proposed by the
Examiner, based on Gass’s teaching that slots can be shortened, Chuang’s
plurality of recesses would remain positioned to the side of the blade where
the motor and other members are located. The Examiner does not
adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
to position Chuang’s plurality of recesses “between the front edge and the
slot so that the channel does not intersect with the slot,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and of dependent claims 3 and 4, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Chuang and Gass.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4 103 Chuang, Gass 1, 3, 4

REVERSED