Ex Parte Tinti

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2014

12387853 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2014)

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.
12/387,853 05/07/2009 Robert Tinti JEC011 7206
7590 12/01/2014
James E. Curry
P.O. Box 12516
La Crescenta, CA 91224
EXAMINER
GRAHAM, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2014 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 ROBERT TINTI
____________

Appeal 2012-012184
Application 12/387,853
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Tinti (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–10 and 20–26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-012184
Application 12/387,853

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a vibration isolation system for a
hand implement. Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A vibration isolation system for a hand implement having
a grip end and a impact end, the hand implement having a
fundamental bending natural frequency (ω) and a mass (m), the
vibration isolation system comprising:
a outer shell member having an inner surface
substantially encircling and spaced outwardly from the grip
end, the outer shell member sufficiently spaced outwardly from
the grip end allowing the grip end to freely deflect within the
outer shell member when the impact end of the hand implement
impacts an object within an intended zone of contact; and,
at least two isolation elements positioned between the
grip end and the outer shell member and supporting the outer
shell member about the grip end, each isolation element having
an inner mounting surface and an outer mounting surface, the
inner mounting surface affixed to the grip end of the hand
implement and the outer mounting surface affixed to the inner
surface of the outer shell member, the isolation elements
establishing a spring rate (k) of the vibration isolation system
when the system is affixed to the hand implement, the square
root of the spring rate (k) divided by the mass (m) of the hand
implement defines a natural frequency of the vibration isolation
system (ωo), (ωo = (k + m)1/2), wherein the ratio of the
fundamental bending natural frequency (ω) divided by the
natural frequency of the vibration isolation system (ωo) is
greater than 1.5; and,
the isolation elements having a footprint length and the
outer shell member having a length that is at least 2 times
greater than the footprint length of the isolation elements.

Appeal 2012-012184
Application 12/387,853

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1, 3–10, and 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sims (US 2010/0184540 A1, published July 22, 2010) and
Shomo (US 4,660,832, issued Apr. 28, 1987); and
(iii) claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sims and Shomo, and Wu (US 5,332,280, issued June 21, 1994).
Claim 27 was introduced in an Amendment dated July 15, 2011, and
that Amendment was noted as being entered in the Advisory Action dated
August 1, 2011. Neither the Final Office Action dated May 17, 2011, nor
the Examiner’s Answer dated May 11, 2012, contains a rejection of claim
27.1 Claim 27 is thus not within our jurisdiction in this appeal.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3–10, and 20–25--Obviousness--Sims/Shomo
The Examiner finds that Sims teaches the claimed outer shell member
and the at least two isolation elements positioned between the grip of the
hand implement and the outer shell member. Answer 4. The Examiner
acknowledges that Sims does not disclose that the ratio of the fundamental
bending natural frequency of the bat to the natural frequency of the vibration
isolation system is greater than 1.5. Id. The Examiner cites to Shomo as
teaching that selection of materials and controlling the thickness, length, and
width of the isolation elements dictates the degree of vibration absorption in
a similar system. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been

1 The Advisory Action indicated that claim 27 would be rejected, but no
rejection has been made.
Appeal 2012-012184
Application 12/387,853

4
obvious to modify Sims to select a particular material (cellular urethane) and
appropriate thickness, length, and width for the isolation elements in order to
attain a value for the claimed ratio that is greater than 1.5, if that is the
“degree of vibration absorption or isolation desired by the ordinary skilled
artisan.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner also takes the position that, if such a
value for the ratio is not inherent in the Sims system, it would have been
obvious to try various isolation elements in order to attain such a value. Id.
at 7.
The Examiner’s position is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Although Sims describes using elastomeric decouplers to space an
outer shell from a bat handle to isolate the handle from the outer shell, in
order to “keep[] shock (and to a significant extent other vibrations) from
being transmitted to the batter’s hands when a ball is struck,” Sims further
describes using one or more damping devices to further lessen the
transmission of shock or vibration to the batter’s hands. Sims, ¶ 38; passim.
There is no indication in Sims that persons of ordinary skill in the art would
rely solely on vibration isolation to lessen the vibration felt by a batter.
Further, Shomo’s discussion of choice of materials and sizing of spacer
elements is with respect to a vibration absorption or damping system,
whereas vibration isolation involves different principles. Shomo, col. 1, ll.
44–49; col. 5. ll. 38–46; Appeal Br. 10–11.
The Examiner’s rejection, including the “obvious to try” rationale,
appears to be premised on an understanding in the art that the spring rate of a
vibration isolation system, as governed by properties of the isolation
elements, as well as the ratio of the fundamental bending natural frequency
of a hand implement, such as a bat, to a natural frequency of the vibration
Appeal 2012-012184
Application 12/387,853

5
isolation system, are akin to result effective variables that persons of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change to produce a
desired result. Such is not evidenced in the Sims hybrid isolation/damping
system. Further, as noted above, although Shomo addresses choice of
material and appropriate sizing of spacer elements, it is with regard to an
energy absorption or damping system, and not a vibration isolation system.
Appellant notes that, in order to attain the claimed ratio value and to
adequately isolate vibrational forces using isolation only, “an extremely low
spring rate of the system is needed.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further
points out that “the joints in a vibration isolation system tend to be ‘floppy’
and wriggle around a lot.” Id. at 11. Although Sims mentions that the
system therein will experience “wiggle and jiggle” (Sims, ¶ 41), it appears to
us that only a certain amount of floppiness would be tolerated from a
practical standpoint for a baseball bat, tennis racket, or other similar hand
implements. Sims, in that respect, can be seen as acknowledging that
attaining a desirable level of vibration reduction would not be achieved
using vibration isolation alone. As such, we do not agree that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious reducing the spring rate to
the point that the claimed ratio value in excess of 1.5 in order to achieve a
particular level of vibration isolation.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1, 3–10, and 20–25 as
being unpatentable over Sims and Shomo is not sustained.
Claim 26--Obviousness--Sims/Shomo/Wu
The Examiner does not rely on Wu in any manner that would result in
overcoming the deficiencies of the rejection based on the combination of
Appeal 2012-012184
Application 12/387,853

6
Sims and Shomo. As such, the rejection of claim 26 as being unpatentable
over Sims, Shomo, and Wu is not sustained.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3–10, and 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sims and Shomo is reversed.
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sims, Shomo, and Wu is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh