Ex Parte Perini

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

10547435 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

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.
10/547,435 08/25/2005 Fabio Perini 71898RCE 7069
23872 7590 03/13/2012
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
EXAMINER
LANDRUM, EDWARD F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FABIO PERINI
____________

Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, and 12-26. Claims 2, 4-6, and 8-11 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellant’s
representative presented oral argument on March 6, 2012. We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus for moving logs within cutting-off
machines, the apparatus comprising:
a cutting means for cutting uncut logs;
a platform defining one or more longitudinal channels for
receiving uncut logs;
a pusher means located on said platform for engaging a
back end of the uncut logs and for pushing each uncut log along
one of said one or more longitudinal channels toward said
cutting means, said cutting means being located downstream of
said pusher means;
a clamping means for clamping the uncut logs received
from said one or more longitudinal channels of said platform
via said pusher means and for driving the uncut logs to said
cutting means, said clamping means being disposed between
said pusher means and said cutting means, said clamping means
comprising a first endless belt and a second endless belt, said
first endless belt being located at a position above the uncut
logs, said second endless belt being located at a position below
the uncut logs, said pusher means being mounted for movement
such that said pusher means moves in a linear direction between
a first position and a second position, said pusher means
moving one or more of the uncut logs in a direction of said first
endless belt and said second endless belt when said pusher
means moves from said first position to said second position,
said pusher means moving from said second position to said
first position in a direction opposite said first endless belt and
said second endless belt after said clamping means receives the
one or more of the uncut logs.
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murray (US 5,680,802; iss. Oct. 28, 1997), Walker
(US 5,373,878; iss. Dec. 20, 1994) and Hutchinson (US 3,045,728; iss. Jul.
24, 1962).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Murray, Walker, and Hutchinson, and Bright (US 4,036,270; iss. Jul. 19,
1977).
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Murray, Walker, Hutchinson, and Bastasch (US 6,042,864; iss. Mar.
28, 2000).
ISSUE
Does Walker disclose a pusher means or pushing means as recited in
independent claims 1, 7, and 21?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 13-20 as obvious over Murray, Walker, and Hutchinson
Claim 1
The Examiner found that Murray discloses an apparatus with a cutting
means (saw 26), a platform (conveyor 14) defining a longitudinal channel
for uncut logs, and a clamping means 20, 21 for clamping uncut logs, but
does not disclose a pusher means or a clamping means as recited in claim 1.
Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Walker discloses a pusher means that
comprises a chain 56 with pusher lugs 54 that contact the rear end of a log
and move in a linear direction between a first position (Fig. 1) and a second
position closer to cutting means 14. Ans. 4-5, 8. The Examiner determined
that it would have been obvious to replace Murray’s conveyor belt with
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

4
Walker’s chain conveyor and pusher lugs because Murray recognizes these
elements as equivalent conveying means. Ans. 5; Murray, col. 2, ll. 61-62.
The Examiner also found that Hutchinson discloses a clamping means that
comprises opposing conveyor belts 34, and determined that it would have
been obvious to include Hutchinson’s conveyor belts in Murray to more
positively grip each log along its length and because opposing driven rollers
(Murray) and driven belts are art-recognized equivalents. Ans. 5-6.
Appellant argues that Murray’s infeed conveyor 14 constantly moves
toward the vertical rolls 20, 21 to deliver logs to the vertical rolls 20, 21 but
does not move in an opposite direction. App. Br. 15-16. Appellant also
argues that Walker conveys log 50 via pusher lugs 54 mounted on an endless
lug chain 56 and does not disclose a pushing means that moves from a first
position to a second position or from a second position to a first position
away from clamping means after one or more logs have been delivered to
the clamping means. App. Br. 16-17. Appellant also contends that Walker
lacks the manufacturing efficiency of the claimed pusher means that moves
from one position to another position in a linear direction and can push logs
toward the clamping means while the cutting means is cutting logs that have
been delivered. App. Br. 17. Appellant also asserts that a person skilled in
the art would not be directed to the conveyor 10 of Walker because Murray
discloses an infeed conveyor 14 for moving a log. Id. Appellant further
asserts that Hutchinson fails to disclose a pushing means. App. Br. 18.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Murray, Walker,
and Hutchinson discloses a pusher means as called for in claim 1. Walker’s
endless loop lug chain 56 and pusher lugs 54 engage the back end of uncut
logs and push the uncut logs along a longitudinal channel toward a cutting
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

5
means. Walker, col. 2, ll. 45-55. The pusher lugs 54 move in a linear
direction between a first position (Fig. 1) and a second position closer to the
cutting means to deliver a log to the cutting means and then move from a
second position back to a first position on the endless loop lug chain 56.
When substituted for Murray’s belt conveyor, the pusher lugs 54 of Walker
would move toward and away from Murray’s clamping means (rollers 20,
21, 18) as called for in claim 1.1 Appellant’s arguments regarding the
efficiency of the claimed pusher means are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1. Moreover, Walker’s pusher lugs 54 would be able to push one
log toward the cutting means while another log is being cut.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the first and second
endless belts of the clamping means are opposed and define a log receiving
space substantially equal to an outer diameter of the uncut logs. The
Examiner relied on Hutchinson to disclose this feature. Ans. 5. Appellant
argues that none of the references disclose a pushing means moving in a
linear direction and replacing Murray’s conveyor 14 with Walker’s chain 56
would not allow chain 56 to be moved through Murray’s cutting means.

1 Appellant refers to “[a] pusher means 3 (35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph)”
in the summary of claimed subject matter (App. Br. 2) but does not provide
arguments to distinguish Walker from the claimed pusher means based on
corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification. Appellant discloses
that pusher means 3 comprises a bar 30 disposed transverse to longitudinal
channels 10 of the platform. Spec. 4, ll. 3-5; fig. 1. Walker’s pusher lugs 54
are disposed across the channel formed by runners 42, engage the back ends
of uncut logs, and push uncut logs along channel 42 toward a cutting means
as called for in claim 1. Walker, col. 2, ll. 39-55; fig. 1. Thus, Walker
discloses the pusher means as disclosed by Appellant, or an equivalent
structure.
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

6
App. Br. 19. As discussed supra, Walker discloses a pusher means. The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Ans. 8, 9.
Claim 7
Independent claim 7 recites a method for moving logs within cutting-
off machines with a pushing means and a clamping means similar to claim 1.
The Examiner found that Murray, Walker, and Hutchinson disclose the
claimed method. Ans. 3-6, 9. Appellant argues that none of Murray,
Walker, or Hutchinson discloses the claimed pushing means that moves logs
from a second position to a first position in a direction opposite a clamping
means after one or more logs are delivered to the clamping means. App. Br.
20-22. Appellant’s arguments regarding Murray and Hutchinson are not
persuasive because the Examiner relied on Walker to disclose a pushing
means and substituted Walker’s lug chain for Murray’s conveyor because
belts and chains are art recognized equivalent means of conveying logs to a
cutting means. Ans. 4-5. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner
that Walker discloses a pushing means.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites features of the belts of the
clamping means. Appellant argues that none of the references disclose a
platform with one or more longitudinal channels where logs are moved by a
pushing means in a direction of a set of endless belts as claimed. App. Br.
22. Appellant also argues that Murray’s infeed conveyor 14 has a flat
surface that does not define any longitudinal channels. Id. We agree with
the Examiner that replacing Murray’s infeed conveyor 14 with Walker’s lug
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

7
chain 54 and runners 42 would provide a longitudinal channel for receiving
uncut logs. Ans. 9; Walker, col. 2, ll. 31-55; figs. 1-3. Appellant has not
shown error in that finding.
Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20
Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 1. Claims 19 and 20 depend
from claim 7. Each claim calls for movement of the first and second endless
belts to be synchronized with movement of the cutting means so the belts
move uncut logs when the cutting means is not actuated and the cutting
means cut logs when the endless belts do not move uncut logs. Appellant’s
argument that Hutchinson does not disclose this feature (App. Br. 22-23) is
not persuasive because the Examiner found that Murray synchronizes rollers
with cutting means and determined that replacing Murray’s rollers with
Hutchinson’s belts would provide synchronization between Hutchinson’s
clamping belts and Murray’s cutting means. Ans. 9-10; see Murray, col. 3,
ll. 17-43. Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings
or determination of obviousness with respect to these claims.
Claim 16-18
Claims 16-18 depend from claim 7. Appellant argues that none of the
references disclose the features recited in claims 16-18 in combination with
a platform having one or more longitudinal channels for receiving uncut logs
because Murray’s flat infeed conveyor 14 does not define longitudinal
channels. App. Br. 23-25. These arguments are not persuasive because the
Examiner relied on Walker to disclose a platform with one or more defined
longitudinal channels for receiving uncut logs. Ans. 9-10. We agree that
Walker discloses this feature. Walker, col. 2, ll. 31-55; figs. 1-3. Appellant
has not shown error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to these claims.
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

8
Claim 12 as obvious over Murray, Walker, Hutchinson, and Bright
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and calls for the second closed loop
belt to be adjacent to the platform so that a portion of the second closed loop
belt is aligned with the platform. The Examiner found that Bright teaches
alignment of a bottom conveyor belt with a platform for conveying a work
piece and determined that it would have been obvious to modify Murray to
align the lower conveyor belt with the platform, as taught by Bright, to
present logs to the cutting means at a proper angle and prevent a saw blade
from binding with a work piece during cutting. Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that none of the references disclose the features of
claim 12 adjacent a platform that has defined longitudinal channels because
Murray’s conveyor 14 is not equivalent to the claimed platform. App. Br.
25-26. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relied on
Walker, not Murray, to disclose a platform with one or more longitudinal
channels in combination with features of Bright and the other references.
Claims 21-26 as obvious over Murray, Walker, Hutchinson, and Bastasch
Independent claim 21 claims an apparatus having a cutting means, a
pusher means, a clamping means, and a platform defining a plurality of
longitudinal channels for uncut logs. The Examiner found that the modified
Murray device discloses all the features of claim 21 except a plurality of
longitudinal channels on a platform. Ans. 6. The Examiner relied on
Bastasch to teach that it was well known to provide a plurality of
longitudinal channels for mass production and a more efficient cutting
process. Ans. 7. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious
to provide multiple longitudinal channels on Murray to process more than
one log at a time. Id. The Examiner also determined that it would have
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

9
been an obvious matter of design choice to provide multiple longitudinal
channels to increase efficiency and duplicate parts to achieve a multiplied
effect. Id. Appellant argues that none of the references disclose a pusher
means that is mounted to a platform with one or more longitudinal channels
to move in a direction opposite to a clamping means after at least one log has
been delivered to the clamping means or to move logs in one or more
longitudinal channels to a clamping means. App. Br. 26-28.
We agree with the Examiner that Murray, Walker, Hutchinson, and
Bastasch disclose the features of claim 21. Appellant’s argument that
Bastasch does not disclose a pusher means mounted on a platform with one
or more longitudinal channels (App. Br. 28) is not persuasive because the
Examiner relied on Walker to disclose these features and Bastasch to teach
the use of a plurality of longitudinal channels to improve cutting processes.
Ans. 10-11. We also agree with the Examiner that Bastasch is reasonably
pertinent to Appellant’s problem of moving logs in cutting-off machines and
continuously feeding logs to cutting means. Spec. 1, ll. 5-6; 2, ll. 17-22.
Murray and Walker, like Bastasch, continuously convey products to cutting
means. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (reference with same
purpose as claimed invention relates to the same problem).
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites opposed first and second
closed loop belts disposed with respect to a plane on which uncut logs arrive
sliding on the platform. Appellant argues that Bastasch discloses a conveyor
belt that moves bread bowls within partitions 32 to a cutting station and that
none of the references disclose a pushing means mounted to a platform to
slide logs in one or more longitudinal channels. App. Br. 30. We agree with
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

10
the Examiner that the modified Murray device has a pusher means that
pushes logs in a longitudinal channel and that it would have been obvious to
provide a plurality of longitudinal channels on Murray based on Bastasch’s
teachings or as a duplication of the longitudinal channel of Walker. Ans. 7.
Walker also discloses a pusher means that moves logs along a longitudinal
channel toward cutting means. Ans. 4-5; Walker, col. 2, ll. 31-55; figs. 1-3.
Claim 23
Appellant argues that none of the references disclose clamping means
at a spaced location from the platform as called for in claim 23 because
Bastasch’s conveyor passes through a cutting station and is not combinable
with the other references. App. Br. 30-31. As discussed supra, Bastasch is
directed to the same problem as the other references and Murray, as
modified by Hutchinson, discloses spaced clamping means. See Ans. 3, 11.
Claim 24
Appellant argues that none of the references discloses a platform with
one or more longitudinal channels and a pushing means and that Bastasch’s
conveyor 20 is not equivalent to the claimed platform. App. Br. 31. As
discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Murray’s modified device
includes a platform with a longitudinal channel and Bastasch teaches that it
would have been obvious to provide a plurality of such platforms to improve
cutting processes. See Ans. 7, 9-11.
Claims 25 and 26
Dependent claims 25 and claim 26 recite that movement of the first
and second closed loop belts is synchronized with movement of the cutting
means. Appellant’s argument that Hutchinson’s opposing belts 34 are not
synchronized with a cutting means (App. Br. 32) is not persuasive because
Appeal 2010-004291
Application 10/547,435

11
the Examiner relied on Murray to disclose this feature and the Examiner
found that Hutchinson’s opposing belts 34 would be synchronized in a
similar manner when added to Murray’s device. Ans. 9-11.
CONCLUSION
Walker discloses a pusher means and pushing means as recited in
independent claims 1, 7, and 21.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murray, Walker, and Hutchinson is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Murray, Walker, and Hutchinson, and Bright is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murray, Walker, Hutchinson, and Bastasch 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nlk