9754741Canada Ltd

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 18, 2021

2020006265 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021)

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. 15/662,794 07/28/2017 David Prystupa 87518-2US/ADB 6890 23529 7590 05/18/2021 ADE & COMPANY INC. 2157 Henderson Highway WINNIPEG, MANITOBA R2G1P9 CANADA EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3655 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2021 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): djones@adeco.com uspto@adeco.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID PRYSTUPA, JOHN PACAK, and ROBERT KOZAKEWICH ____________________ Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 and 21–25.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as 9754741 Canada Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Although Appellant states that claims 2–10, 12–18, and 25 are withdrawn from this appeal (Appeal Br. 2), these claims were not cancelled by an amendment entered by the Office, and for that reason the claims are considered part of the instant appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c). Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Below, we reproduce claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal. 1. A method for singulating particles comprising: providing a supply of massed particles in a supply conduit; rotating a rotary body around an axis; the rotary body defining at least one duct extending from an inner end adjacent the axis outwardly to an outer end spaced at a greater radial distance outwardly from the axis than the inner end; feeding the massed particles at the inner end of said at least one duct; the inner end being arranged in an array adjacent the axis so that the supply conduit acts to deposit the particles at the inner end of said at least one duct for entry of the particles into the inner low velocity end and for separation of the stream of particles in the conduit into separate ones of said at least one duct; and rotating the rotary body at an angular velocity which generates a centrifugal force on the particles which overcomes friction on the particles caused by contact of the particles with the duct thus causing the particles to be accelerated as they pass from the inner end to the outer end and causing the particles to be separated each from the next by a space by said acceleration caused by the centrifugal force in said at least one duct and aligned one after another in a row in the duct as they move toward the outer end. Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 3 EVIDENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Baranowski US 7,128,204 B2 Oct. 31, 2006 Baroncini US 9,382,024 B2 July 5, 2016 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–13 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Baranowski. II. Claims 14–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Baranowski and Baroncini. III. Claims 21–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Baranowski. OPINION Rejection I – Anticipation by Baranowski The Examiner addresses claim 1 as if dispensing particles singularly is synonymous with the particles being separated each from the next by a space as claimed. As explained below, these terms are not synonymous, and for that reason we reverse. The Examiner finds that Baranowski discloses a method for singulating particles that includes, in relevant part, rotating the rotary body at an angular velocity which generates a centrifugal force on the particles which overcomes friction on the particles caused by contact of the particles with the duct causing the particles to be accelerated as they pass from the inner end to the outer end and causing the particles to be separated each from the next by a space by said acceleration caused by the centrifugal force in said at least one duct and aligned one after another in a row in the duct as they move toward the outer end ( . . . col. 17, Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 4 ln. 15–20 expressly teaching that rotational speeds of dispensing paths may be adjusted to dispense items singularly). Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is in error because there is “no disclosure in Baranowski that the rotation has any effect on the separation. Yet further there is no disclosure that the rotation is set at a level that will generate sufficient centrifugal force to overcome the friction . . . and to provide the separation.” Appeal Br. 9. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding as to the disclosure of Baranowski is deficient. Baranowski discloses that “a rotational speed of feeder bowl 101, dispensing paths 102, or both may be adjusted, so that dispensing paths dispens[e] items singularly.” Baranowski 17:17–20. The Examiner takes the position that this disclosure “directly undermin[es] Appellant’s characterization that the rotating channels have nothing to do with particle separation.” Ans. 4 (citing Baranowski 17:10–20). In this regard, the Examiner appears to interpret “dispens[e] items singularly,” as disclosed by Baranowski, to mean that the items are separated by space, as called for in claim 1. However, Appellant persuasively asserts that Baranowski’s “[d]ispensing singularly relates to the individual dispensing of each particle relative to the next into the containers. Singular dispensing does not require any separation.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner does not point to, nor do we discern, any disclosure in Baranowski to indicate that adjusting the rotational speed of dispensing paths 102 to “dispense items singularly” means that the items are separated by space. We note that Baranowski discusses “dispens[ing] items singularly, e.g., in a single file, so that each item may be counted accurately.” Baranowski 1:37–38 (emphasis added). Thus, by “dispensing singularly,” Baranowski appears to mean that items are Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 5 dispensed in a single file, but Baranowski is silent as to the items being separated by space. We are also unconvinced by the Examiner’s stated position that Baranowski discloses “acceleration of the particles by rotating the arc- shaped channels at greater speeds than the feeder bowl speed, [and,] thus[,] it logically follows that some increased spacing (i.e., separation) between particles will be caused by the centrifugal force as the particles accelerate through the curve of the arc.” Ans. 4–5; see also id. at 4 (finding that “Baranowski expressly teaches that the dispensing paths may have ‘a rotational speed that is greater than’ the feeder bowl (col. 16, ln. 50–62)”). It appears that the arc-shaped channels referred to by the Examiner are lane dividers 602. See Baranowski 15:39–41 (disclosing that “each lane divider 602 may extend in a partially radial and a partially arc-shaped manner from a center, e.g., a geometric center, of feeder bowl 601, as shown in FIG. 6”). However, lane dividers 602 are part of feeder bowl 101, not dispensing paths 102, and, thus, it appears that dividers 602 would rotate with feeder bowl 101 at the same speed. See id. at 15:26–31 (disclosing that “item-receiving surface 101b of feeder bowl 101 may include a plurality of lane dividers, which form a plurality of lanes for guiding items along item-receiving surface 10[1]b of feeder bowl 101 to dispensing paths 102 positioned around feeder bowl 101”). Moreover, the Examiner does not proffer any evidence or convincing technical rationale to explain why rotating dispensing ducts 102 at a greater speed than feeder bowl 101 would necessarily generate a centrifugal force sufficient to cause the particles to be separated by space. In short, the Examiner has not established a finding supported by a preponderance of the Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 6 evidence that Baranowski discloses, expressly or inherently, rotating a rotary body at an angular velocity which generates a centrifugal force sufficient to cause the particles to be accelerated and separated from each other by space. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2–13 and 25, as anticipated by Baranowski. Rejections II and III – Obviousness Based on Baranowski alone, or in combination with Baroncini The Examiner’s rejections of claims 14–18 and 21–24, which depend ultimately from claim 1, rely on the same finding as to the disclosure of Baranowski that we find deficient for the reasons discussed above in connection with Rejection I. See Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner relies on Baroncini for teaching additional recited features in Rejection II, but does not articulate any findings or reasoning in either of Rejections II and III that would cure the aforementioned deficiency in the disclosure of Baranowski. See id. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 14–18 and 21–24. Appeal 2020-006265 Application 15/662,794 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–13, 25 102(a)(1) Baranowski 1–13, 25 14–18 103 Baranowski, Baroncini 14–18 21–24 103 Baranowski 21–24 Overall Outcome 1–18, 21–25 REVERSED