![]() ![]() 1 Miller, the Junior Party, made two arguments for priority. In the interference proceeding, Brand was the Senior Party, having filed his application on May 31, 1995. Miller's ′232 patent employs radially-expandable round “collett dogs” (depicted below at left) to support the flitch while Brand's ′120 application uses multi-headed tall pin dogs (depicted below at right) for the same purpose. While the same claim appears in both the ′232 patent and the ′120 application, the inventors used different methods to solve the problem of attaching a tapered flitch to a staylog. Providing a staylog for a veneer slicing machine having a veneer slicing knife Īttaching a flitch having a tapered veneer producing face to the staylog with the tapered veneer producing face affixed in a stable, parallel relationship with the veneer slicing knife andĬutting veneer sheets with the veneer slicing knife from the tapered veneer producing face of the flitch. The count reads:Ī method for cutting veneer sheets from a tapered flitch, comprising the steps of The count, which is claim 1 of Miller's ′232 patent and the identical claim 38 of Brand's ′120 application. On April 28, 2004, the Board declared an interference with a single count to determine whether Miller or Brand should have priority. The two companies had a close working relationship, and Thomas Miller on occasion communicated new design concepts to Capital. ![]() Miller is the named inventor of the ′232 patent. Thomas Miller was Production Manager of Miller Veneers, a customer of Capital. He is now retired from Capital and works as an unpaid consultant with Miller Veneers. (“Capital”), which makes machines for cutting veneer. The inventors here used different types of dogs to solve that problem.ĭuring the relevant period Robert Brand was the Chief Engineer for Capital Machine Co. ![]() Traditional dogs could not be used to mount a tapered flitch (16) onto a staylog (10) because traditional dogs did not allow the length of the dog extending from the staylog to vary based on the flitch's taper. This results in more efficient use of the flitches. 5,865,232 (“′232 patent”)) is parallel to the veneer-cutting knife. The invention at issue allows a tapered flitch to be mounted on a staylog such that the flitch's veneer-producing face (the uppermost surface region of 16 in the diagram below from U.S. The ends that had been cut off were then discarded. The flitch is held in place on the staylog by clamping “dogs.” The veneer-cutting knife then cuts off slices of veneer from the flitch as it rotates on the staylog.īecause logs are typically thicker at their base than at their end, traditionally the butt-ends of the resulting tapered flitches were cut off in order to make them more uniform in cross-section from end to end. Typically logs are cut lengthwise into a pair of “flitches,” which are then mounted onto the rotating “staylog” of a veneer cutting machine. The invention here relates to methods of cutting veneer from logs of wood. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We hold that the Board impermissibly relied on its own expertise in determining the question of derivation and that the Board's conclusion is not supported by substantial record evidence. The Board concluded that Brand derived the subject matter of the single count from Miller. 105,215, entering judgment for appellees Thomas A. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in Interference No. and Indiana Forge, LLC (“Brand”) appeal from the judgment of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) of the U.S. Browning, Krieg Devault LLP, of Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellees.Īppellants Robert D. Meredith Martin Addy, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, of Chicago, IL, argued for appellants. Decided: May 14, 2007īefore MICHEL, Chief Judge, ARCHER, Senior Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge. Pinkston, and Miller Veneers, Inc., Appellees. BRAND, Capital Machine Co., Inc., and Indiana Forge, LLC, Appellants, v. United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |