Campbell, Doug et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

14119502 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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.
14/119,502 11/22/2013 Doug Campbell 0809434-0020-0004 7981
27910 7590 01/14/2020
STINSON LLP
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
1201 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 2900
KANSAS CITY, MO 64106-2150
EXAMINER
PATEL, BHARAT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 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):
USpatent2@stinson.com
patent@stinson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUG CAMPBELL, RYAN CAMPBELL, and
RUSSELL D. FRIES
____________

Appeal 2019-0035271
Application 14/119,5022
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 5–8, and 41, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our decision references Appellant’s corrected Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed Oct. 22, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 25, 2019), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 24, 2019) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 16, 2018).
2 Appellant identifies SM PRODUCTS, LLC as the real party of interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
3 Claims 2–4 and 10–15 are withdrawn, and claims 9 and 16–40 are
canceled. Appeal Br. 2
Appeal 2019-003527
Application 14/119,502

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a reciprocating saw blade
for a reciprocating saw apparatus.” Spec. 1:3–4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal
and is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A reciprocating saw blade engageable with a
reciprocating saw for driving the reciprocating saw blade in a
reciprocating motion comprising a push stroke and a pull stroke
comprising:
a longitudinal body having a first end and a second end, a
first longitudinal cutting edge and a second longitudinal cutting
edge disposed along said longitudinal body; wherein said first
longitudinal cutting edge and said second longitudinal cutting
edge are parallel to each other;
a mounting structure located at said first end of said
longitudinal body and angled at an acute angle relative to said
first longitudinal cutting edge; said mounting structure adapted
to be mounted in a reciprocating saw blade holder; said
mounting structure formed unitary with said longitudinal body;
wherein said first longitudinal cutting edge has a plurality
of teeth oriented for cutting substantially on the pull stroke;
wherein said second longitudinal cutting edge has a
plurality of teeth oriented for cutting substantially on the push
stroke; and
wherein the second end contains a plurality of teeth
configured in the same manner as the first longitudinal cutting
edge for cutting substantially on the pull stroke.

Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-003527
Application 14/119,502

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 5–8, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rack (US 6,782,781 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2004) and
Mizoguchi (US 5,964,039, iss. Oct. 12, 1999).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Rack and Mizoguchi, the
Examiner finds that Rack teaches substantially all of the limitations recited
in claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Rack, Figs. 4, 5). The Examiner
acknowledges that Rack does not teach that the “second longitudinal cutting
edge has a plurality of teeth oriented for cutting substantially on the push
stroke,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3. However, the Examiner finds that
Mizoguchi teaches a second longitudinal cutting edge 33 having a plurality
of teeth 33A oriented for cutting substantially on the push stroke. Final Act.
3 (citing col. 5, ll. 22–55; Figs. 1–16B).
Rack teaches a saw blade 10 for a receiprocating saw apparatus that
has a lower, longitudinal blade edge 12 and an upper, longitudinal blade
edge 14. Rack, col. 2, ll. 23–25, Fig. 1. Upper edge 14 of blade 10 is
curvilinear, and lower edge 12 is rectilinear. Id. at col. 2, ll. 33–38.
Teeth 30 of edge 12 and teeth 32 of edge 14 are raked slightly towards back
end 16 of blade 10. Id. at col. 2, ll. 44–45. When blade 10 is positioned in
an opening of a workpiece, such as a plywood panel, the operator can cut the
workpiece using lower edge 12 or upper edge 14. Id. at col. 4, ll. 13–15.
Specifically, the operator can force blade 10 downwards to cut the
workpiece with edge 12, and also force blade 10 upwards to cut with edge
14 without needing to remove the blade from the opening in the workpiece.
Appeal 2019-003527
Application 14/119,502

4
Id. at col. 4, ll. 15–20, ll. 30–34. By raking the teeth on each edges towards
back end 16 of the blade, the feel of the cutting is similar in both directions.
Id. at col. 4, ll. 20–23.
Mizoguchi describes an electric saw 1 having a generally rectangular
shape that includes a second saw tooth section 32 on one longitudinal edge
of saw blade 30, and a third saw tooth section 33 on an opposite edge.
Mizoguchi, col. 4, ll. 41–48. Electric saw 1 drives saw blade 30 in a
reciprocating orbital motion, and blade 30 is fixed perpendicular to a base 20
of a housing 10 for electric saw 1 when a driving arm 50 is at a forward
position of its elliptical orbit. Id. at col. 5, ll. 3–8; Figs. 1, 2. Mizoguchi
distinguishes this perpendicular positioning of saw blade 30 against base 20
with prior art saw tools that fixed the blade at less than a right angle. Id. at
col. 5, ll. 11–12. Fixing the saw blade at a right angle enables Mizoguchi’s
saw tool to achieve an “accurate cutting operation [that] can be performed
without causing an excess of cutting or remnants of cutting.” Id. at col. 5,
ll. 8–11.
In prior art saw blades, the rake angle is zero, causing a vertical force
to act on the workpiece during a cutting operation that translates into a
relatively large vibration on the workpiece. Id. at col. 5, ll. 46–50.
Mizoguchi’s saw blade 30, in contrast, has a second saw tooth section 32
inclined at a downward rake angle, that cuts the workpiece when the saw
blade is moved upwardly. Id. at col. 5, ll. 35–38. It also has a third saw
tooth section 33 inclined at an upward rake angle that cuts the workpiece
when the saw blade is moved downwardly. Id. at col. 5, ll. 50–55.
Mizoguchi’s electric saw 1 cuts in both forward and backward directions.
Id. at col. 6, ll. 1–14. For example, Mizoguchi describes with reference to
Appeal 2019-003527
Application 14/119,502

5
Figure 6A inserting the blade in a through hole in a work piece, and then
cutting the workpiece in a forward direction using second saw tooth section
32 and in a backward direction using the opposing side of saw blade 30, i.e.,
third saw tooth section 33. See id. at col. 6, ll. 1–14.
The Examiner reasons that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention to replace the second
longitudinal teeth of Rack’s teeth arrangement with the second
longitudinal cutting edge, as taught by Mizoguchi, in order to
provide for an efficient continuous cutting operation without
pulling the saw blade out from the workpiece for reversing the
cutting direction.
Id. (citing Mizoguchi, col. 2, ll. 22–34). One difficulty with the Examiner’s
reasoning, however, is that Rack’s teeth arrangement does not require
pulling the saw blade out from the workpiece for reversing the cutting
direction. See Rack, col. 4, ll. 15–20. The Examiner does not adequately
articulate with rational underpinnings, and it is not readily apparent, why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the raking of Rack’s second
longitudinal cutting edge to have a plurality of teeth oriented for cutting
substantially on the push stroke, instead of on the pull stroke. It also is not
apparent whether the Examiner accounted for the different angles at which
the saw blades are mounted in Rack’s and Mizoguchi’s mounting structures,
or the different angles in which the blades are used on a workpiece in a
cutting operation when determining that it would have been obvious to
modify the orientation of the plurality of teeth to cut on the push stroke.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5–8 and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rack and Mizoguchi.
Appeal 2019-003527
Application 14/119,502

6

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 41 103(a) Rack, Mizoguchi 1, 5–8, 41

REVERSED