Ex Parte Breuer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2017

12600313 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2017)

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. 12/600,313 11/16/2009 Michael Breuer 24587 7639 535 7590 KF ROSS PC 311 E York St Savannah, GA 31401-3814 05/19/2017 EXAMINER AVERICK, LAWRENCE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2017 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): savannah@kfrpc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL BREUER, HENDRICK LANGER, and JOCHEN MUENKER Appeal 2015-007120 Application 12/600,313 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael Breuer et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 21—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-007120 Application 12/600,313 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A roll stand for flat rolling a workpiece moving in a predetermined direction, the stand comprising: a frame; an upper backing roll and an upper working roll forming an upper roll set in the frame and rotatable about respective vertically spaced and parallel upper axes transverse to the direction; a lower working roll and a lower backing roll below the upper set and forming a lower roll set in the frame below the upper set and rotatable about respective vertically spaced and parallel lower axes transverse to the direction, the working rolls defining a gap through which the workpiece passes in the direction, the working rolls being of smaller diameter than the respective backing rolls, the upper and lower working rolls being of the same diameter, the upper and lower axes all being parallel; a mount shiftable in the direction on the frame and on which both of the rolls of one of the sets are pivotally mounted; and respective pairs of vertically spaced adjusters braced between the frame and the mount upstream and downstream in the direction and generally level with the axes of the respective rolls of the one set for shifting both of the rolls of the one set in the direction relative to the frame through a horizontal offset between the working rolls of between 50 mm and 120 mm.1 1 Our review of the prosecution history of the instant application reveals that this is no authorization by the Examiner for entry of the amendment filed September 23, 2014. Accordingly, this copy of claim 21 is correct. 2 Appeal 2015-007120 Application 12/600,313 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: McConnell US 2,271,459 Cozzo US 2,792,730 Yasuda US 5,560,237 Yamamoto US 6,510,721 B1 REJECTIONS I. Claims 21—23, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yasuda and Yamamoto. II. Claims 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yasuda, Yamamoto, and McConnell.2 III. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yasuda, Yamamoto, and Cozzo. Jan. 27, 1942 May 21, 1957 Oct. 1, 1996 Jan. 28, 2003 DISCUSSION Rejection I In the rejection of claims 21—23, 25, and 28, the Examiner finds that Yamamoto discloses “respective pairs of vertically spaced adjusters braced between the frame and the mount upstream and downstream in the travel direction.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted) (citing Yamamoto, 4:45—50; Fig. 8, item 70). Appellants contend that Yamamoto does not show the pairs of vertically spaced adjusters of feature e braced between the frame and the mount 2 The reference to “Keller” in the discussion of the rejection of claim 26 appears to be a typographical error, as Keller is not listed in the statement of the rejection for claim 26. 3 Appeal 2015-007120 Application 12/600,313 upstream and downstream in the direction with the axes of the respective rolls of the one set for shifting both of the rolls of the one set in the direction relative to the frame through a horizontal off set between the working tolls of between 50 mm and 120 mm. Appeal Br. 8—9 (emphasis omitted). Yamamoto describes item 70 as a screw device for imposing a rolling load in an upper portion of the housing 61. Yamamoto, 8:56—58. Yamamoto does not disclose a pair of screw devices 70 or indicate that screw device 70 is a vertically spaced adjuster. See generally id. The Examiner further finds that Yamamoto “shows #73, #74, #78, #77 (Hydraulic cylinder) for horizontal adjustment.” Final Act. 5. Thus, we understand the rejection to alternatively rely on Yamamoto’s screw mechanisms 73, 77 and hydraulic cylinder mechanisms 74, 78 to meet the limitations pertaining to pairs of vertically spaced adjusters. See id. Appellants contend that “in Yamamoto the adjustment means are not located such that the adjustment means are mounted generally level (or essentially horizontally level) with the axis of the respective roll.” Appeal Br. 7. In support of this contention, Appellants provide a marked-up copy of Yamamoto’s Figure 8 reproduced below: 4 Appeal 2015-007120 Application 12/600,313 This Figure is a schematic view of a cross rolling mill. As indicated by the horizontal lines bisecting Yamamoto’s screw mechanisms 73, 77 and hydraulic cylinder mechanisms 74, 78, these mechanisms are mounted above the axes of their respective rolls, not “generally level3 with the axes of the respective rolls” as required by claim 21. The Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to locate Yamamoto’s screw mechanisms and hydraulic cylinder mechanisms such that they are generally level with the axes of the respective rolls. Rather, the Examiner merely repeats the finding that “Figure 8, shows the pairs of hydraulic cylinders #73, #74, and #77, #76 to be generally level with the axis of the the rolls.” Ans. 6. Thus, Appellants’ argument is persuasive. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—23, 25, and 28. Rejections II and III The Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 24, 26, and 27 (i.e. Rejections II and III) rely upon the same erroneous finding as Rejection I discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 24, 26, and 27 for the same reason. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 21—28 are REVERSED. REVERSED 3 An ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “level” is “[bjeing at the same height or position as another; even.” American Heritage Dictionary.com, http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=level (accessed May 16, 2017). 5