Ex Parte Izumi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2010

10570363 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte EIJI IZUMI and KATSUNORI NOGUCHI
____________________

Appeal 2009-007987
Application 10/570,363
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007987
Application 10/570,363
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for bending pipe
material. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A bending apparatus having a pressure die and a wiper that
cooperate to cramp a pipe prior to bending of the pipe, said pipe
having a bent section including an outer circumferential surface
defining an outer surface of the bent section and an inner
circumferential surface defining an inner surface of the bent
section, wherein the front surface of the pressure die has a first
section and a second section that cooperate to define a
longitudinally extending groove, said first section being
relatively remote from said bent section of the pipe and said
groove in said first section having a substantially semi-circular
shape that can fit a substantially half body of the outer
circumferential surface of the pipe, said second section being
relatively closer to said bent section of the pipe and said groove
in said second section having a substantially semi-elliptically
tapered shape, and wherein said wiper defines a longitudinally
extending groove and wherein the wiper groove has a
semicircular shape that can fit a substantially half body of the
inner circumferential surface of the pipe, whereby, following
cramping by cooperation of the pressure die and the wiper, the
outer circumferential surface of the pipe has a semi-elliptical
shape and the inner circumferential surface of the pipe has a
semi-circular shape.

Appeal 2009-007987
Application 10/570,363
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dieser
Ferguson
US 4,481,803
US 4,841,760
Nov. 13, 1984
Jun. 27, 1989

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dieser and Ferguson. Ans. 3.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review, we
have reached the determination that the applied prior art does not establish
the prima facie obviousness of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection
on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
Dieser discloses a tube bender with a pressure die 20 and a wiper die
22. Col. 2, ll. 10-17. Dieser does not disclose that the pressure die has an
extended groove with a first section of substantially semi-circular cross
section and a second section of substantially semi-elliptical tapered shape.
Ferguson discloses a tube bending die 2 with an oblique converging
passage 3 having a circular cross section at the Figure 8 end thereof with the
passage 3 tapering obliquely to a quasi-elliptical cross section at the Figure 7
end thereof. Col. 7, ll. 49-56. Ferguson defines “quasi-elliptical cross
section” as “a cross section which closely resembles an ellipse in shape
although it may not strictly satisfy the mathematical definition of an ellipse.”
Col. 4, ll. 65-68. Ferguson further states that the quasi-elliptical shape is
Appeal 2009-007987
Application 10/570,363
4
formed of two arcuate portions having substantially the same radius as the
original tube with the two arcuate portions connected at their ends by short
curved portions of relatively short radius. Col. 5, ll. 1-5. It is our factual
finding that an arcuate portion connected at each end with two halves of
short curved portions having short radii does not describe or define a semi-
circular wiper groove as claimed. While we acknowledge that the arcuate
portion of the curve of Ferguson has a radius r equal to the radius of the
original circular pipe, this curve is not semi-circular in extent. Moreover, at
its ends it has portions of arcs of relatively short radii. Based on our factual
finding with respect to the shape of the quasi-elliptical output of the die 2 of
Ferguson, it is our conclusion that Ferguson would not have taught the exact
combination of wiper and pressure die profile claimed in the independent
claims on appeal. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established the prima
facie obviousness of claims 1, 4, and 5.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

nlk

RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
38210 GLENN AVENUE
WILLOUGHBY OH 44094-7808