Ex Parte HUNTER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

13799721 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/799,721 03/13/2013
31743 7590 11/30/2018
Georgia-Pacific LLC
133 Peachtree Street NE
GA030-39
ATLANTA, GA 30303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark S. HUNTER
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.
21034 (02734.0685) 1025
EXAMINER
CARRILLO, BIBI SHARIDAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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 MARKS. HUNTER, DEAN J. BAUMGARTNER,
DAVID DREW RAINES, THEODORE D. KENNEDY,
DAVID S. VELDHUIZEN, GLENN W. BUSCH, and
MITCHELL S. EDBAUER
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-14, and 18-25. We have jurisdiction over
1 Our decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed March 13, 2013,
Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed December 28, 2015,
Appellant's Supplemental Appeal Brief ("Suppl. Br.") filed April 27, 2016,
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated October 12, 2016, and Appellants'
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed November 3 0, 2016.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, which
is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on November 19,
2018. 3
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to methods for cleaning a moving fabric used in
the manufacture of paper webs (Spec. ,r 1 ). Appellant discloses an initial
cleaning shower and a second cleaning shower resulting in a continuous
cleaning system that does not suffer from areas of residue contamination
causing poor fabric performance (id. ,r 2). According to Appellant, the
cleaning methods permit the use of only water without the need for
additional chemical additives to achieve appropriate fabric cleaning and
minimizes fabric rewet (id. ,r 4).
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitation at issue
is italicized.
1. A method for continuous cleaning a transfer or drying
papermaking fabric during paper production comprising:
producing a paper web on a papermaking machine using
a transfer or drying fabric to be cleaned, the fabric having a
width and length and traveling in a machine direction;
subjecting the fabric to be cleaned to an initial cleaning
stage, wherein the initial cleaning stage includes applying either
steam or water, or both, at a temperature of greater than 80°C
from an initial cleaning assembly that spans the entire width of
the fabric to be cleaned;
subjecting the fabric to be cleaned to a second cleaning
stage following the initial cleaning stage downstream in the
machine direction relative to the initial cleaning stage, wherein
3 A copy of the oral hearing transcript will be made of record upon its
availability.
2
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
the second cleaning stage includes a second cleaning assembly,
separate from the first cleaning assembly, that spans the entire
width of the fabric to be cleaned; and
wherein paper production is not interrupted during
cleaning.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a): 4
1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 18-23 as unpatentable over
Smith 5 in view of Grabscheid; 6
2. Claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over
Smith in view of Grabscheid, and further in view of Straub; 7 and
3. Claim 5 as unpatentable over Smith in view of Grabscheid, and
further in view of Orloff. 8
ANALYSIS
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability"). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
4 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013 effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute.
5 Smith, GB 1,003,698, published September 8, 1965.
6 Grabscheid et al., US 2004/0011492 Al, published January 22, 2004.
7 Straub et al., US 2003/0019602 Al, published January 30, 2003.
8 Orloff et al., US 5,669,159, issued September 23, 1997.
3
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches a method of cleaning a felt or
fabric used in a papermaking machine, wherein a cleaning rack 10 carrying a
plurality of spray nozzles 12 oscillates back and forth across the entire width
of the felt and sprays a water and steam mixture on the felt (Ans. 3--4). The
Examiner finds that treating the felt with a first nozzle is the initial cleaning
stage and treating the felt with a second nozzle is the second cleaning stage,
wherein the second cleaning stage includes a second cleaning shower, i.e.,
the second nozzle, which spans the width of the fabric to be cleaned (id. at
4). Further, although the Examiner finds that Smith teaches reciprocating
rack 10 across the width of the felt such that the jets of fluid from the
nozzles reach the full surface of the felt, the Examiner acknowledges that
Smith fails to teach or suggest the cleaning assemblies, i.e., the nozzles, span
the entire width of the fabric to be cleaned (id.).
The Examiner finds Grabscheid teaches an application device 10
comprising a plurality of cleaning assemblies or nozzles 14, 14' which rotate
continuously along a path F extending at least essentially over the entire
width of a papermaking machine to clean or condition a felt (Ans. 4). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified
Smith's method to include traversing cleaning assemblies or nozzles over
the entire width of the papermaking machine in order to clean the entire
4
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
width of the felt or fabric (id.). 9 The Examiner finds that Grabscheid's
second cleaning stage or nozzle 14' is downstream of the initial cleaning
stage or nozzle 14 (id. at 5). Alternatively, the Examiner determines that,
absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been
within the level of ordinary skill in the art "to position the cleaning stages at
the desired locations and/ angles in order to achieve the highest level of
cleanliness" (id.).
Appellant argues that neither Smith nor Grabscheid teaches a second
cleaning stage following the initial cleaning stage downstream in the
machine direction as required by each of independent claims 1, 13, and 14
(Appeal Br. 16). In particular, Appellant contends that Smith discloses a
single cleaning assembly including a plurality of nozzles that oscillate back
and forth to span the width of the fabric (id.). Appellant further contends
that Grabscheid discloses a single cleaning assembly including a plurality of
nozzles arranged on a closed rotating path to span the width of the fabric
(id.). Appellant urges that the Examiner's findings that Smith and
Grabscheid teach or suggest separate cleaning stages is based on an
unreasonable interpretation of these references (id. at 17). Instead,
Appellant argues that Smith and Grabscheid's nozzles are not separate
cleaning stages, but are merely different nozzles on the same cleaning
assembly that together make up a single cleaning stage (id.).
9 The Examiner determines that the second cleaning stage following the
initial cleaning stage downstream in the machine direction is met "in view of
the indefiniteness as described above" (Ans. 5). However, the Examiner
withdrew the indefiniteness rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r
2. We, therefore, do not credit this determination in our analysis.
5
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. As
Appellant notes, the claims require two cleaning stages, each including a
separate cleaning assembly, the second of which follows and is downstream
of the first in a machine direction. Smith's adjacent nozzles are aligned with
each other in the machine direction and are neither upstream nor
downstream from each other in the machine direction. Further, the
Examiner fails to direct our attention to any disclosure in Smith suggesting
the nozzles may be positioned upstream or downstream from one another in
the machine direction, nor do we find any. We note that claim 1 requires
that each of the separate cleaning assemblies "spans the entire width of the
fabric to be cleaned," which we construe to mean that the assembly
structurally spans the entire width of the fabric to be cleaned. 10 If each
nozzle or subset of nozzles in Smith were interpreted to be a cleaning
assembly, then Smith's assemblies nonetheless would not meet the
limitations of claim 1 because these assemblies would not each structurally
span the entire width of the fabric to be cleaned.
Likewise, as Appellant contends, Grabscheid teaches a single cleaning
assembly that structurally spans the entire width of the fabric to be cleaned,
10 We note that claims 18-25 may be in conflict with the independent claims
by qualifying the limitation that the assemblies span the entire width of the
fabric to be cleaned with how such spanning occurs, e.g., "by applying the
steam or water, or both, to the entire width of the papermaking fabric
simultaneously," or "by reticulating back and forth to apply the steam or
water, or both, across the entire width of the papermaking fabric." Because
we construe the independent claims to require that the assemblies span the
entire width of the fabric to be cleaned to be a structural limitation, the
dependent claims may conflict with this construction. The Examiner and
Appellant should address the question as to whether claims 18-25 are proper
dependent claims.
6
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
but only because Grabscheid's assembly includes all of the rotating nozzles.
If each of Grabscheid's nozzles or subset of nozzles were interpreted to be a
cleaning assembly, then, like Smith, Grabscheid's assemblies would not
each structurally span the entire width of the fabric to be cleaned.
Notwithstanding the above, we are also persuaded that neither Smith
nor Grabscheid teach initial and second cleaning stages, wherein the second
stage follows the first stage downstream in the machine direction. With
regard to the Examiner's alternative determination that it would have been
within the ordinary skill in the art to position the cleaning stages at desired
locations and angles in order to achieve the highest level of cleanliness, we
note the Examiner fails to direct our attention to any teaching or suggestion
in the prior art for positioning separate cleaning stages at desired locations
and angles. As Appellant argues, both Smith and Grabscheid disclose a
single cleaning stage including a single cleaning assembly. The Examiner's
interpretation otherwise is unreasonable.
The Examiner does not rely on either Straub or Orloff to remedy the
deficiencies in the combination of Smith and Grabscheid discussed above.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 1-3, 5-14, and 18-25.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-3, 5-14, and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Smith in view of Grabscheid, alone or further in view of either Straub or
Orloff, is reversed.
7
Appeal2017-002194
Application 13/799, 721
REVERSED
8