Ex Parte Hanses et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2018

14372468 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/372,468 83657 7590 Michael Soderman Tauentzienstr 9-12 Berlin, 10789 GERMANY FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 07/16/2014 Christian Hanses 12/14/2018 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14-167 4166 EXAMINER ROMANO, ASHLEY K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2018 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): ip@soderman.us PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTIAN HANSES and ROLAND SITT A 1 Appeal2018-002567 Application 14/372,468 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 8-11, 13, and 16-19. Br. 3. "Claims 1-7, 12 and 14--15 were canceled." Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we find error in the Examiner's rejections of these claims. Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejections. 1 "The real party in interest is Pool Invest GmbH." Br. 3. From this, as well as the Application Data Sheet dated July 16, 2014, we understand "Pool Invest GmbH" is the Appellant in accordance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46. Appeal2018-002567 Application 14/372,468 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to an unloading system for bulk material from a transport vessel, in particular a container, into a silo or another hopper." Spec. 2. 2 System claim 8 is the sole independent claim; is illustrative of the claims on appeal; and, is reproduced below. 8. An unloading system for bulk material from a transport container (4) into a silo or into another hopper, having an unloading device (1) with a basic frame (2) and an auxiliary frame (3), whereas the basic frame (2) can be fixed to the transport container ( 4) to be unloaded, and a screw trough (7) with worm drive (8) that can be shifted and locked horizontally with respect to an unloading opening of the transport container (4) is provided on the basic frame (2), wherein a dosing device (11 ), which provides pressure compensation and which adapts the speed of a conveyor system, is arranged on the screw trough (7) for dosing the bulk material to be delivered, and a dust seal (12) that is pressurized or depressurized, said dust seal forming a double seal and hermetically locked transfer area in combination with a flexible discharge device, is arranged between the screw trough (7) and the unloading opening of the transport container (4), wherein the unloading device ( 1) is connected to the transport container ( 4) to be unloaded in such a way that the pressurizable dust seal (12) of the unloading device (1) is linked in a dust-tight manner to a separate single wall (15) with said flexible discharge device (17) that is fixed to an opening of the transport container (4). REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Eves Clark et al. us 1,820,610 us 3,756,469 Aug.25, 1931 Sept. 4, 1973 2 Appellant's "Substitute Specification" dated July 16, 2014 lacks both line and paragraph numbering. Hence, we refer to this Specification via page number only. 2 Appeal2018-002567 Application 14/372,468 Palma et al. Boliden US 2005/0184103 Al WO 80/01793 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 3 Aug. 25, 2005 Sept. 4, 1980 Claims 8-10, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Boliden and Eves. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Boliden, Eves, and Clark. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Boliden, Eves, and Palma. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 8-10, 13, and 16-18 as unpatentable over Boliden and Eves Sole independent claim 8 includes the limitation, "said dust seal forming a double seal and hermetically locked transfer area in combination with a flexible discharge device." For guidance as to the scope and meaning of this limitation, Appellant's Specification states that the unloading operation is carried out "in such a way that the dust seal (12) ... thereby forms a dual gasket." Spec. 3. Appellant's Specification describes one "gasket" as being "pressurisable" and located "between the screw trough (7) and the ... transport vessel (4)."4 Spec. 3. Another "gasket" is described as being placed "to cover the complete opening area of the transport 3 "As noted in box 7, the amendments overcome the 112 rejection, the 103 rejections of the claims still apply." Advisory Action dated April 13, 2017. 4 On this point, Appellant argues that the dust seal "extends around the junction" or "surrounding the junction." Br. 6. 3 Appeal2018-002567 Application 14/372,468 vessel."5 Spec. 5. Thus, based on Appellant's Specification, and arguments made, we construe this limitation such that Appellant's recited "dust seal" both covers the opening and is also pressed around the opening, consistent with the language, "said dust seal forming a double seal."6 The Examiner relies on the teachings of Boliden for disclosing "dust seal (19)." Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3. When Boliden's container is to be emptied, "flap 19 is swung [upwardly] away from the emptying opening 18." Boliden 7:30-34; see also id. at 6:31-33; Figs. 1, 3, and 4. Elsewhere, Boliden describes locking pins that lock "the flap 19 in its downwardly swung position, in which position said flap sealingly abuts the surrounding defining edges of the opening 18." Boliden 7:2-5. Despite Boliden's disclosure of flap 19 being swung upwardly away from opening 18 during the emptying operation, the Examiner nevertheless finds that when the unloading device is connected to the container, "the dust seal ... is linked in a dust-tight manner to a separate single wall (Fig. 3)." Non-Final Act. 4. This is a mis-reading of Boliden, and particularly Figure 5 Appellant, in distinguishing the cited art, explains that their dual gasket/seal "is also across the plane of the unloading space of the transport vessel." Br. 6. 6 The Examiner, on the other hand, appears to rely on two different devices in Boliden as teaching this "double seal." See Non-Final Act. 4. For example, the Examiner references Boliden's "flexible discharge device (40) for sealing (Pg. 8, line 6) between the screw trough and the unloading opening" and on Boliden's "dust seal (19) (at the unloading opening of the transport container)." Non-Final Act. 4. This understanding is bolstered by the Examiner's statement, "the dust seal (19) and the flexible discharge device (40) create a double seal." Ans. 4 (referencing Boliden Fig. 3.). Additional perplexity ensues when the Examiner, unlike in the Non-Final Action, describes Boliden's dust seal 19 as "indeed between the unloading opening (18) of the container (15) and the screw trough (25)." Ans. 4. 4 Appeal2018-002567 Application 14/372,468 3 thereof, which describes and depicts flap 19 being swung upwardly out of the way during emptying, and hence no longer "linked in a dust-tight manner." See supra. Boliden only discloses flap 19 forming a seal when in the down position, and, when in that sealed down position, no connection between the container and the unloading device can occur because flap 19, being swung down, blocks opening 18. See Boliden 7:2-5. Hence, the Examiner's finding that when "the unloading device is connected to the transport container to be unloaded," "the dust seal [19] is linked in a dust- tight matter" is not correct. We are instructed, The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis .... [W]e may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In the present case, although there are truths in the Examiner's findings, as indicated above, there are also "deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting [the Examiner's] legal conclusion of obviousness." Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017. In view of this, we are not persuaded the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Boliden and Eves renders claim 8, and dependent 5 Appeal2018-002567 Application 14/372,468 claims 9, 10, 13, and 16-18, obvious. 7 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of these claims. The rejection of (a) claim 11 as unpatentable over Boliden, Eves, and Clark; and, (b) claim 19 as unpatentable over Boliden, Eves, and Palma The Examiner relies on the additional references to Clark and Palma for the additional limitations recited in claims 11 and 19 (i.e., Clark for a resealable outlet "with a zip fastener" and Palma for a "bulk shocker"). See Non-Final Act. 6, 7. Neither reference is relied upon to cure the defect of Boliden as addressed above. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 11 and 19. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 8-11, 13, and 16-19 are reversed. REVERSED 7 Eves is not employed to cure the defect ofBoliden above. See Non-Final Act. 4--5. 6