Ex Parte Parks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2013

12358534 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2013)

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.
12/358,534 01/23/2009 James R. Parks TN-1499D 2688
28268 7590 12/05/2013
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199
TOWSON, MD 21286
EXAMINER
FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2013 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 JAMES R. PARKS, ROBERT S. GEHRET,
WILLIAM R. STUMPF, FREDERICK R. BEAN,
DANIEL PUZIO, MICHAEL L. O’BANION,
LEWIS H. ROHR, ROBERT P. WELSH,
CARL F. MERHAR III, SCOTT M. LIVINGSTON,
DAVID E. DUNCANSON, and ADAN AYALA
________________

Appeal 2012-000432
Application 12/358,534
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-000432
Application 12/358,534

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 39-43. App. Br. 5. Claims 1-38 and 44-50 have been
canceled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to table saws.” Spec.
1:4. Independent claim 39 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below:
39. A saw comprising:
a table;
a base supporting the table, the base comprising a front
panel with a slot;
a saw assembly pivotably connected to at least one of the
table and the base for carrying a rotatable cutting tool so that
the tool protrudes through and above the table, at least part of
the saw assembly being underneath the table;
one of the panel and the saw assembly supporting a fixed
stop and the other of the panel and the saw assembly supporting
a movable stop movable between a first position bypassing the
fixed stop and a second position contacting the fixed stop.

REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Tautz US 2,168,282 Aug. 1, 1939

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Tautz. Ans. 4.

Appeal 2012-000432
Application 12/358,534

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 39-43 together. App. Br. 10-12. We select
sole independent claim 39 for review with claims 40-43 standing or falling
with claim 39. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 39 includes the limitations of “a front panel with a slot,” “a saw
assembly,” and also “one of the panel and the saw assembly supporting a
fixed stop.” The Examiner finds that Tautz discloses this claimed structure
and particularly “a front panel with a slot 51” as well as “a fixed stop (the
bottom surface of the table 17).” Ans. 4. The Examiner determines that “[i]t
is clear Tautz teaches the fixed stop which is the bottom surface of the table
17 is supported by at least one of the panels 15 of the device as shown in
Fig. 2.” Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is improper because
“Tautz does not disclose a fixed stop disposed on either the panel or the saw
assembly” and further that “the fixed stop must be disposed on either the
panel or the saw assembly.” App. Br. 10. Appellants state “[i]t appears that
the Examiner is trying to state that, because the panel 15 supports the table
17, panel 15 ‘supports’ the fixed stop” and further that “[t]his reading is
incorrect, however, because it ignores the ordinary and customary meaning
of the word ‘support.’” App. Br. 11, see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants base
this contention on the rationale that “[i]n the present case, the specification
freely interchanges the words ‘support’ and ‘disposed on’ in the description
of the different bevel stop bypassing mechanisms” and also provides an
example of same. App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 3 both referencing Spec. 18:12.
Appellants do not expressly define “support” (or the claim term
“supporting”) in the Specification and we are instructed that “[a]bsent an
Appeal 2012-000432
Application 12/358,534

4
express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point to
definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the
PTO’s definition unreasonable.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). See also, e.g., In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA
1969) (applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution,
and broad interpretation reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued,
will be interpreted more broadly than is justified); In re ICON Health and
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“as applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee”). We are further
instructed that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is tasked with
interpreting claims as broadly as their terms reasonably allow and further
that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the
plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In the matter before us regarding the term “support,” 1 the disclosure
identified by Appellants when seeking to restrict ”support” to mean
“disposed on” is “a bevel stop 303 may be disposed on front panel 13.”
Spec. 18:12. This example in Appellants’ Specification does not establish
Appellants’ contention that one skilled in the art would understand
Appellants’ usage of “support” as being narrowly limited to “disposed on”
(App. Br. 11-12, Reply Br. 3) as contrasted with its broader ordinary and
customary (i.e., dictionary) meaning. Further, the plain (dictionary)
meaning is consistent with this example and Appellants’ Specification.

1The dictionary definition of “support” is “to carry” and also “to hold up or
serve as a foundation or prop for.” WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 1162 (1979).
Appeal 2012-000432
Application 12/358,534

5
Appellants further acknowledge that “a bevel stop bypassing
mechanism similar to the one shown in Tautz is shown in FIGS. 34-35”
(App. Br. 12) but is described differently, yet Appellants do not persuasively
explain how Tautz’s identified front panel fails to provide support to Tautz’s
table, and particularly the bottom surface thereof which the Examiner
correlates to the claimed fixed stop. Ans. 4, see also Tautz p. 2, col. 2, ll.
37-41.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred regarding the
antecedent basis of the claim term “the panel.” Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants
contend that “[c]laim 39 has only defined one panel: the front panel” and
“[t]herefore, Claim 39 requires that the fixed stop be supported by the front
panel or saw assembly.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ contention is in response
to the Examiner’s finding that “the claim cites one of the panel or other of
the panel supporting a fixed stop, not specifically the front panel only, but
other panels of the saw device as well.” Ans. 5. While Tautz discloses
multiple panels for the table saw,2 Appellants do not explain how the
Examiner erred in finding that “the bottom surface of [Tautz’s] table 17 is
supported by at least one of the panels 15 of the device as shown in Fig. 2.”
Ans. 5. More specifically, Appellants do not explain how Tautz’s
corresponding “front panel with slot 51” (Ans. 4) does not support the
table/fixed stop as claimed. Hence, even assuming arguendo that the proper
antecedent basis for “the panel” is the claimed “front panel with a slot”
(Reply Br. 2), Appellants’ still do not persuade us that Tautz’s identified
front panel with slot fails to support Tautz’s table/fixed stop.

2 See Figures 1 and 2 which illustrate an “upright housing or rectangular
cross-section closed on all four sides and on the bottom.” Tautz p. 1, col. 2,
ll. 26-28.
Appeal 2012-000432
Application 12/358,534

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 39-43 is affirmed.
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

mls