Ex Parte Van Der Veen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13062430 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/062,430 05/27/2011
148434 7590 07/03/2018
Chad L. Thorson
McNair Law Firm, P.A. - Husqvarna
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Rolf Van Der Veen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
38004/09978/P2402USOO 3996
EXAMINER
MORGAN, EILEEN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
mcnairip@mcnair.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY ROLF VAN DER VEEN and TOBIAS NILSSON
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated April 22,
2016 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 12, 13, 16-19, and 21-26. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a double row abrasive disc. Claims 12 and
23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 12, reproduced below with
disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
12. An abrasive disc comprising:
a plurality of fixing means for mounting detachably
mountable carrier plates, each with abrasive elements, to a
grinding side of the abrasive disc,
each carrier plate having a specific fixing geometry, and
the fixing means are disposed at least two separate distances from
the center of the disc,
the fixing means comprising a first set of fixing means
disposed at a first predetermined radial distance from the center
and a second set of fixing means disposed at a second
predetermined radial distance from the center, said second
predetermined distance being shorter than the first predetermined
distance, so that the carrier plates will be arranged in at least two
rows, a first outer row and a second inner row, each fixing means
of the first and second sets of fixing means includes a groove
Husqvama AB ("Appellant") is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, dated
September 22, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), at 1.
2 Claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 11-14 (Claims
App.).
2
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
formed in the abrasive disc, and extending through an entire
thickness of the grinding disc, said groove has a conical shape
where a base of said conical shape facing the center of the disc is
wider than a tip located at or closer towards the outer
circumference of the disc, the groove providing a female
coupling adapted for corresponding male couplings of the carrier
plates, and
wherein a widest portion of at least one groove of the first
outer row is closer to the center than a narrowest portion of at
least one groove of the second inner row to enable the abrasive
elements of each of the first and second set of fixing means to
overlap radially at the widest and narrowest portions
respectively.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Bouvier
Sexton
Bergstrand
us 3,517,466
us 5,567 ,503
WO 2007/011289 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
June 30, 1970
Oct. 22, 1996
Jan.25,2007
1. Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bergstrand and Bouvier.
2. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bergstrand, Bouvier, and Sexton.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
3
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 21-26
As Unpatentable Over Bergstrand and Bouvier
Claims 12 and 23
Appellant argues independent claims 12 and 23 as a group. Appeal
Br. 4--9. We select claim 12 as the representative claim, and claim 23 stands
or falls with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Bergstrand and Bouvier
discloses all of the limitations in claim 12, including:
a widest portion of at least one groove of the first outer row is
closer to the center than a narrowest portion of at least one groove
of the second inner row to enable the abrasive elements of each
of the first and second set of fixing means to overlap radially at
the widest and narrowest portions respectively.
More specifically, the Examiner finds that Bergstrand "does not disclose two
concentric rows of carrier plates/abrasive elements, wherein the rows are
different distances from the center." Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds that Bouvier teaches "a grinding plate 6 having
fixing means for detachably fixing grinding members 1" and "the grinding
members 1 are spaced at two different distances from the center to form two
concentric rows of evenly spaced abrasive elements, wherein the rows have
the same number of elements (8) and the elements in one row are positioned
between elements of the another row." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner's
annotated Figure 1 of Bouvier is presented below:
4
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
In the Examiner's annotated Figure 1, the "outer ... circle shows the outer
abrasive elements/fixing groove along an outer circumference and the
inner ... circle shows the inner concentric set of abrasive elements/fixing
grooves, wherein the outer row overlaps the inner row by 30%." Final Act.
3.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Bergstrand' s
grinding plate/apparatus ... with ... two circular/concentric row
of abrasive elements (along with their fixing grooves), as taught
by Bouvier, in order to decrease the size of abrasive elements
while increasing abrasive coverage of plate to provide a more
efficient grinding operation and to allow cost effective and easy
replacement of smaller worn out elements.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons that "two concentric rows of abrasive
elements allows the grinding plate of Bergstrand to be larger with a greater
number of elements in two rows which would provide more efficient
grinding of larger floor areas." Id. at 3--4. According to the Examiner, the
proposed combination would modify:
Bergstrand to have two rows of fixing grooves (conical with
widest part closer to center) that overlap, as taught by Bouvier.
In other words, taking Bouvier's teaching, the grooves of
Bergstrand would be two duplicate rows of what Berstrand [sic]
5
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
discloses, i.e. concentric rows with the widest portion of the first
outer row closer to center than the narrow portion of the grooves
of the inner row.
Final Act. 7; see also Answer, dated December 14, 2016 ("Ans."), at 7.
The Examiner further explains that "[i]n addition, the amount of
overlap (or that the wider portion of the outer row is closer to center than the
narrow portion of the inner row) would have been an obvious design
expedient." Final Act. 7 (emphasis added). The Examiner states "the exact
spacing would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have
therefore constituted an obvious mechanical expedient at the time of
[Appellant's] invention." Id. at 4.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous because
the Examiner's references to "obvious design expedient" is not supported
by "evidence that the spacing in the manner claimed is a known alternative
to designs in the prior art" and "the Examiner has not provided any
reasoning, much less a 'convincing line of reasoning' as to why making such
modifications is an obvious matter of design choice." Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant, however, misapprehends the Examiner's rejection. See, e.g.,
Ans. 8 ("Examiner DOES NOT rely on design choice to teach the
overlapping of the widest part and narrowest part. This is clearly the result
of the teaching of Bouvier to be applied to Bergstrand. The only obvious
design choice was used as to the exact amount of overlap/spacing and
number of abrasive elements, as detailed above."). The Examiner's
rejection, including the Examiner's findings regarding Bergstrand and
Bouvier and articulated reasoning for combining them, properly present a
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 12. The Examiner's rejection is
not based on design expediency or design choice. The Examiner's reference
6
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
to "obvious design expedient" relates to the "amount" of overlap between
the overlapping rows and fixing means, not whether the claim 12 limitations
are disclosed in the combination of Bergstrand and Bouvier. Because
Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner,
Appellant does not identify error by the Examiner.
In Appellant's Reply Brief, dated February 13, 2017 ("Reply Br."),
Appellant asserts that the "Examiner has provided no objective justification
for" for the Examiner's position:
that, because Bouvier may disclose overlapping abrasive
elements/fixing grooves, one of ordinary skill in the art would
then be motivated to add an additional row of tapering/conical
grooves to Bergstrand which would lead to Bergstrand having
two rows of fixing grooves, where the widest part of the groove
would be closest to the center.
Reply Br. 3; see id. at 4 (arguing the Examiner does not identify "a reference
that teaches the claimed spacing"). Appellant also asserts that "the
reasoning and motivation provided in the Examiner's Answer for modifying
the claimed invention comprises merely conclusory statements and therefore
fails to offer any clear articulation of reasoning with a rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." Id. at 4. We do not agree.
The Examiner's articulated reasoning for combining Bergstrand and
Bouvier, as summarized above, has rationale underpinning. See Bouvier
3: 16-23 ("It is also important that the cavities be so placed that as the device
rotates adjacent studs shall trace paths which overlap to a considerable
degree but not completely, to assure uniform polishing and the elimination
of grooves and scratches in the stone being polished. I find it desirable that
adjacent studs be separated from one another by a distance at least equal to
half the diameter of the studs."). Appellant's arguments are not persuasive.
7
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 12 is sustained. Claim
23 falls with claim 12.
Dependent Claims 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24--26
Appellant does not present additional arguments addressing
specifically the rejection of claims 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24--26. Appeal
Br. 9--10 ("Dependent claims 13, 16-19, 21, 22 and 24--26 are ... patentable
over the cited references for at least the same reasons given for independent
claims 12 and 23."). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 13, 16, 18, 19,
21, 22 and 24--26 for the reasons set forth above for claims 12 and 23. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejection 2: Claim 17
As Unpatentable Over Bergstrand, Bouvier, and Sexton
With respect to Rejection 2, Appellant argues that
Sexton fails to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Bergstrand
and Bouvier, and was not cited as such. Accordingly, as claim 1 7
depends from claim independent claim 12, claim 17 is patentable
over the Bergstrand, Bouvier, and Sexton, alone or in
combination, for at least the same reasons given above for
independent claims 12.
Appeal Br. 10. Because there are no deficiencies in Bergstrand and Bouvier,
and Appellant does not present additional arguments addressing specifically
the rejection of claim 17, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 for the reasons
set forth above for claims 12 and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal2017-005229
Application 13/062,430
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 12, 13, 16-
19, 21, 22 and 24--26 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9