Ex Parte Doucet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11498656 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/498,656 08/03/2006 Louis John Doucet 6003.1068 9136 23280 7590 09/18/2012 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 485 7th Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER MCCLAIN, GERALD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3653 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte LOUIS JOHN DOUCET and GLENN ALAN GUARALDI ________________ Appeal 2010-006495 Application 11/498,656 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006495 Application 11/498,656 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1-6 (App. Br. 2). Claims 7-9 have been withdrawn (Id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter pertains to “printing presses and more particularly to a transport device for transporting printed products” (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Sole independent claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A transport device for transporting printed products comprising: a first and a second tape for receiving and transporting the printed products; a first and second roller for guiding the tapes; a nip-adjusting device adjusting a nip formed by the first and second tapes at the first and second rollers; and a sensor determining a thickness of the printed products, the nip adjusting device being actuated as a function of the sensor. REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Wamsley US 5,673,910 Oct 7, 1997 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wamsley (Ans. 3). Appeal 2010-006495 Application 11/498,656 3 ANALYSIS The claim term “nip,” which is not in dispute, is used by Appellants in the Specification consistent with its dictionary definition of “to catch hold of and squeeze tightly between two surfaces, edges, or points: PINCH” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 770 (1979)). Each claim on appeal (i.e., claims 1-6) requires “a nip-adjusting device adjusting a nip formed by the first and second tapes at the first and second rollers.” The Examiner finds that Wamsley anticipates this limitation and specifically identifies Wamsley’s item 140 as the nip adjusting device, two belts 312 as the first and second tapes, and rollers 82, 88 as the first and second rollers (Ans. 3, see also Ans. 4 for the Examiner’s annotation of Wamsley’s Figs. 4 and 7). The Examiner does not identify a nip, but Wamsley states that “[a] linear nip 122 is formed between the two sets 80 and 86 of rollers” (Wamsley 5:39-40, see also Fig. 5). Note that rollers 82 and 88, identified by the Examiner, are part of sets 80 and 86 respectively (Wamsley 5:12-14). Wamsley describes item 312 as a “belt drive system” connected to rollers 82 and 88 (Wamsley 14:55-56, see also Fig. 7). Appellants contend that Wamsley does not teach “a nip formed by the first and second tapes” and further that Wamsley’s “nip 122 is not formed by the drive belt system 312” (App. Br. 5, see also Reply Br. 2). Appellants also contend that Wamsley’s “drive belt system 312 plays no part in positioning rollers against each other” (App. Br. 5, see also Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend that the claimed first and second tapes (i.e., themselves) form the nip by physically contacting the product and that Wamsley’s belt drive system 312 does not contact the product (App. Br. 5). The Examiner, however, takes a more expansive interpretation of the Appeal 2010-006495 Application 11/498,656 4 limitation “formed by” which does not require physical contact (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that since Wamsley’s belt drive system 312 is connected with rollers 82 and 88, and since Wamsley teaches that rollers 82 and 88 form the nip, the belt drive system 312 thereby forms the nip (Ans. 5). Wamsley’s belt drive system 312 drives the rollers (see Fig. 7). The Examiner does not identify where Wamsley teaches or illustrates that belt drive system 312 does anything other than rotate these rollers. In contrast, Wamsley teaches that separate mechanisms (items 124, 126) not associated with the belt drive system “are provided to adjust the width and configuration of the nip 122” (Wamsley 5:40-42). We are not persuaded that Wamsley’s belt drive system 312 acts on the rollers other than to rotate them. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that “drive belt system 312 plays no part in positioning rollers against each other” (App. Br. 5) and as such, we are not persuaded that the claimed “nip formed by the first and second tapes” is disclosed, whether expressly or inherently, by the identified belt drive system. We reverse the rejection of claims 1-6. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-6 is reversed. REVERSED MP