Court Opinion

ID: 9451448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:17:41.248862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:44.927287
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority finds that the reciprocating apparatus defined in the appealed claims would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. I disagree with this finding and dissent for the following reasons.
Appellant in his brief states the case as I see it. He says:
In support of applicant’s contention that the reciprocating apparatus of the present invention is patentably distinct over the art of record, applicant points out that the following advantages flow from and are gained by the novel arrangement defined in claims 1 and 2:
1. By having the reciprocating movement of one carrier activate the force transmitting means to reciprocate another carrier, the phase relationship between the carriers is intimately correlated regardless of the wear, tear and setting of the drive mechanism. By virtue of the present invention, there is a precise and accurate phase relationship between adjacent strands of filamentary material to produce an improved and stronger reinforcing matrix.
2. By reducing the number of parts required, applicant has reduced the oscillating mass to a large degree. Consequently, applicant’s machine attains *1008greater operating speed with less power. This is significant, because the limiting factor in the speed of operation of the overall machine and the output of the reinforced sheet material is the reeiprocator speed. Therefore, it is not just a matter of reducing parts, but more important it is a matter of output and speed of operation.
The majority opinion states that one of ordinary skill in the art would find these improved results to be obvious in view of the drive arrangement of Ben-bow and Caretta and concludes there is “no sound reason for doubting that a person of ordinary skill in the art” would be unaware of substituting these driving arrangements in Chadwick.
This reasoning involves a non sequi-tur. It is beyond question that the drive arrangement of Benbow and Caretta is not the same as that employed by appellant. Appellant clearly explains in his brief that:
One carrier is driven directly by a drive mechanism and imparts a cyclical motion to strands of filamentary material. However, the other carrier is driven by the reciprocating movement of the first carrier. Stated otherwise, it is the movement of the first carrier which activates interengaging reversal means located between the first and second carriers that causes the reciprocating movement of the second carrier.
Benbow and Caretta, in contrast, utilize a pinion common to two racks to cause movement between the two racks. In Benbow, two washing machine agitators operate simultaneously. In Caretta, movement is transmitted to a remote element via parallel racks.
Thus, substituting the drive arrangements cannot in fact produce a mechanism capable of providing the improved results of appellant’s claimed arrangement. Appellant’s Unique arrangement of the parts produces a result of apparent merit in that it:
1. correlates the phase relationship between the carriers regardless of wear and the setting of the drive mechanism;
2. maintains precise and accurate phase relationship between adjacent strands of filamentary material to produce an improved and stronger reinforcing matrix;
3. reduces the number of parts required and lessens the mass of the oscillating parts;
4. provides greater operating speed with less power;
5. results in greater output in reinforced sheet material.
The appealed claims define a machine and method which are new in this art and which permit improved results of substantial merit, all of which would not be mechanically possible from any combination of the prior art teachings. Considering all of the teachings of record, I fail to see how such a machine and method can be found to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the statutory tests of 35 U.S.C. § 103 are applied. I find that section 103 is not applied to the true fact situation before the court.
As the majority decision rests, as does the opinion of the board, on what I believe to be the erroneous factual conclusion that the substituted prior art drive arrangements would in fact function as does appellant’s claimed invention to produce the improved results first taught by appellant, the decision of the board should be reversed.