BLACK & DECKER INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2022

2022000066 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2022)

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. 15/855,325 12/27/2017 Matthew C. Green NEW-U-14-LX044-A 4508 28268 7590 02/25/2022 Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 701 East Joppa Road, MR045 Towson, MD 21286 EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3724 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2022 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 MATTHEW C. GREEN, STEPHEN A. HAMPTON, and WILLIAM B. KORB ____________ Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 10, 2020, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 4-10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Black & Decker Inc. is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 5, 2021, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 2 unpatentable over Elliston2 and Miller,3 as evidenced by Clark.4,5 Appellant’s representative presented oral argument on February 17, 2022. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to reciprocating “saw blades with cutting teeth defining negative rake angles.” Spec. para. 2. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A reciprocating saw blade comprising: a blade body; and a cutting edge provided along one edge of the blade body and defining a cutting direction, the cutting edge comprising a repeating pattern of cutting teeth, wherein each repeating pattern comprises: a leading tooth with respect to the cutting direction, the leading tooth comprising: a first tooth tip defining a first tooth height; and a first rake face defining a first negative rake angle; and 2 Elliston et al., US 2012/0000338 Al, published Jan. 5, 2012. 3 Miller, US 4,339,977, issued July 20, 1982. 4 The Examiner also relies on Clark, Re. 31,433, reissued Nov. 1, 1983, as evidence. Although Clarke does not appear in the heading of the rejection, it is discussed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 4, 8-9. 5 Claims 18-20 are canceled and claims 2, 3, and 11-17 are withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 18-21 (Claims App.). Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 3 a first trailing tooth following the leading tooth with respect to the cutting direction, the first trailing tooth comprising: a second tooth tip defining a second tooth height that is less than the first tooth height; and a second rake face defining a second rake angle that is greater than the first rake angle and less than or equal to 0°. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Elliston discloses most of the limitations of independent claim 1, but fails to disclose “the specific rake angle[] of the trailing teeth relative to that of the leading tooth.” Final Act. 4-7 (citing Elliston, paras. 36, 50, Figs. 2-4) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Elliston’s “invention is not limited to any specific rake angle and various rake angles, positive or negative” and “Miller teaches that it is beneficial to provide varying rake angles, including negative and positive rake angles.” Id. at 8 (citing Elliston, para. 50); see also Miller, Abstract, col. 3, l. 61-col. 4, l. 49, Fig. 3. According to the Examiner, Miller discloses that: the first tooth to contact the workpiece should have a negative rake angle to start the cut with a reduced force requirement and should be followed by teeth having a less negative rake angle (i.e., wherein a ‘less negative’ rake angle is greater than the referenced negative rake angle), and more specifically a positive rake angle (i.e., wherein a positive rake angle is greater Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 4 than the referenced negative rake angle) to produce more of a digging action to provide a more efficient cutting action. Id (emphasis added). In addition, the Examiner relies on Clark as evidence “that it is beneficial to vary the rake angle of a series of saw teeth in a specific manner based on tooth size” in order to “increase[] the overall cutting speed . . . resulting in . . . improved smooth and quiet operation.” Id. at 8-9 (citing Clark, col. 3, ll. 59-67, col. 4, ll. 9-10). In particular, the Examiner determines that both Miller and Clarke disclose “that it is beneficial to provide series of saw teeth wherein the rake angles increase from the lead tooth to the trailing teeth.” Id. at 9. Hence, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify Elliston’s saw “by providing rake angles of the trailing teeth that are less negative or positive relative to (i.e., greater than) the rake angle of each corresponding leading tooth for the reasons taught by Miller and/or Clark.” Id (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that the benefits achieved from modifying Elliston’s saw blade with Miller are the result of “Miller’s teaching of a progressively increasing rake angle from a negative rake angle at the leading end to a positive rake angle at the trailing end to increase digging action.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant contends that because the benefit of Miller’s saw blade “is only achieved by all teeth on the cutting edge, from the leading end to the trailing end, progressively increasing in rake angle from a negative rake angle to a positive rake angle,” the Examiner’s reasoning to modify Elliston, according to Miller, “cannot necessarily be applied in a Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 5 repeating pattern of cutting teeth in which all of the teeth have a non-positive rake angle to achieve similar results.” Id. Appellant further argues that the benefits of Clark’s saw blade “of increasing overall cutting speed while balancing out impacts for improved smooth and quiet operation” are the result of a repeating pattern of cutting teeth “with a leading tooth having a 0° rake angle and trailing teeth having positive rake angles.” Id. at 10. Thus, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection does not adequately support the position “that the purported benefit [of Clark’s saw blade] could be achieved [with Elliston’s saw blade] with cutting teeth having the claimed rake angles.” Id. In this case, it is undisputed that Elliston fails to disclose a saw blade having cutting teeth that “are in a repeating pattern with . . . first tooth 16 having a first negative rake angle and . . . second tooth 18 having a second rake angle that is greater than the first rake angle and less than or equal to 0°.” Appeal Br. 7-8. Miller is directed to saw blade 10 having a plurality of teeth 34 divided into three sections: in a first section, teeth 341 have “a negative rake angle that is progressively less toward the center of blade”; in a second section, teeth 342 have “a positive rake not less than 0° and not greater than 10°”; and, in a third section, teeth 343 have “a positive rake angle up to about 15°.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Miller, col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 3, col. 4, ll. 7- 15, Fig. 3). Hence, although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that the three sections of Miller’s saw blade constitute a “single pattern” that “include[s] rake angles progressing from a negative rake angle to a zero rake angle,” nonetheless, such a “pattern” does not constitute a “repeating pattern of cutting teeth,” as called for by independent claim 1, because Miller’s Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 6 various rake angles are not “repeated” throughout the three sections. See Examiner’s Answer (dated Aug. 4, 2021, hereinafter “Ans.”) 3. Accordingly, a skilled artisan that would like to obtain the benefit of Miller’s saw blade of increased cutting efficiency (see Miller, col. 4, ll. 34- 36), as per the Examiner’s reasoning (see Final Act. 9), would modify Elliston’s saw blade to have Miller’s progressively increasing rake angles. The Examiner’s rejection does not provide any support for the allegation that providing a “repeating pattern of cutting teeth” having “a second rake angle that is . . . less than or equal to 0°,” as called for by claim 1, to Elliston’s saw blade, would provide the same increased cutting efficiency benefit as Miller’s saw. See id. at 8. Therefore, the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining the teachings of Elliston and Miller is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of the record before us. Further, in regard to the Clark disclosure, Clark is related to a saw blade including teeth that are in a repeating pattern with a first tooth (i.e., leading tooth) having a first rake angle of 0° followed by a plurality of teeth (i.e., trailing teeth) having positive rake angles greater than 0°. See Clark, col. 3, Table, Fig. 2. As such, even though Clark’s saw blade has a “repeating pattern of cutting teeth,” the benefit of Clark’s saw blade to “increase[] the overall cutting speed . . . resulting in . . . improved smooth and quiet operation” (see Clark, col. 3, ll. 63-65) is the result of having a second rake angle that is greater than 0°, which is opposite from Appellant’s “repeating pattern of cutting teeth” having “a second rake angle that is . . . less than or equal to 0°.” See Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As such, a skilled artisan that would like to obtain the benefit of Clark’s saw blade, as per the Examiner’s reasoning (see Final Act. 8-9), Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 7 would modify Elliston’s saw blade with a repeating pattern having a second rake angle greater than 0°. The Examiner’s rejection does not provide any support for the allegation that providing a “repeating pattern of cutting teeth” having “a second rake angle that is . . . less than or equal to 0°,” as called for by claim 1, to Elliston’s saw blade, would result in the same benefit as Clark’s saw blade to “increase[] the overall cutting speed . . . resulting in . . . improved smooth and quiet operation.” See Final Act. 8-9. Therefore, the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining the teachings of Elliston and Clark is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of the record before us. Moreover, we agree with Appellant that because Clark discloses positive rake angles, “Clark teaches away from a trailing tooth in the repeating pattern having a second rake angle that is . . . less than or equal to 0°.” Appeal Br. 13; see also In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”). Finally, we appreciate that Elliston is not limited by a positive or negative rake angle (see Elliston, para. 50); Miller discloses both positive and negative rake angles within a single saw blade pattern (see Miller, col. 4, ll. 30-34); and Clark discloses second positive rake angles (see Clark, col. 3, Table). However, just because “it is known to provide teeth having progressively varying rake angle[s] within each tooth pattern of a blade,” in itself, is not a sufficient reason to make the modification of Elliston’s saw blade as per the Examiner’s rejection. See Ans. 8. In particular, because the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Elliston’s saw blade is to obtain the Appeal 2022-000066 Application 15/855,325 8 specific benefits of Miller’s and Clark’s saw blades, which, in turn, do not include a “repeating pattern of cutting teeth” having “a second rake angle that is . . . less than or equal to 0°,” as called for by claim 1, the Examiner’s rejection is insufficient and the reasoning lacks rational underpinnings. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 4- 10, 21, and 22, as unpatentable over Elliston and Miller, and as evidenced by Clarke.6 CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-10, 21, 22 103 Elliston, Miller, Clark 1, 4-10, 21, 22 REVERSED 6 As we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we do not reach the merits of the Declaration, filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, by Stephen A. Hampton, on August 10, 2020.