Ex Parte Lancaster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 2016

13011252 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/011,252 0112112011 22884 7590 07/28/2016 MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 401 S. 4th Street, Suite 2600 (2600 Brown & Williamson Tower) LOUISVILLE, KY 40202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Patrick R. Lancaster III 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. ZT645-15052 4303 EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/28/2016 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): USPTOmail@middreut.com USPTOmail@middletonlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PATRICK R. LANCASTER III, PHILIP R. MOORE, RICHARD L. JOHNSON, and JOSEPH D. NORRIS Appeal2014-007236 Application 13/011,252 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Patrick R. Lancaster et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b)1 as anticipated Shulman (US 4,458,467, iss. July 10, 1984). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The statement of the rejection indicates that the rejection is based on Â§ 102(a); however, Shulman issued more than a year before the effective filing date of the instant Application. Accordingly, we understand the reference to subsection (a), as opposed to subsection (b ), to be a typographical error. Appeal2014-007236 Application 13/011,252 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for wrapping a load with packaging material, compnsmg: a packaging material dispenser adapter for dispensing packaging material; a relative rotation assembly providing relative rotation between the load and the packaging material dispenser; a mechanical connection operatively coupling the packaging material dispenser to the relative rotation assembly, wherein the relative rotation assembly drives the packaging material dispenser through the mechanical connection; a force exerting mechanism operatively coupled to the mechanical connection; and a sensing element sensing a characteristic of dispensed packaging material, the sensing element being operatively coupled to the mechanical connection; wherein the force exerting mechanism and the sensing element control the mechanical connection to maintain a selected ratio of packaging material dispensed to demand for packaging material at the load for at least a portion of a wrap cycle. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Shulman discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Shulman discloses "a relative rotation assembly (via 60) providing relative rotation between the load and the packaging material dispenser (via transducer 80; column 7, lines 18-39)." Id. at 2. Noting that "[t]he Examiner, therefore, takes the position that rotation of the rollers 42, 44 within the dispenser 33 is 'relative rotation between the load and the packaging material dispenser,'" Appellants contest this finding. 2 Appeal2014-007236 Application 13/011,252 Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellants argue that "[t]he rotation of rollers 42, 44 within the dispenser 33, itself, clearly does not provide 'relative rotation between the load and the packaging material dispenser,' as set forth in claim 1." Id. at 7. Although Appellants mischaracterize Shulman's dancer roller assembly 60 in stating that it is part of Shulman's web dispenser and pretensioner assembly 33, Appellants are nevertheless correct that dancer roller assembly 60 does not provide relative rotation between the load and the packaging material dispenser. Rather, in Shulman, relative rotation between the load and the packaging material is provided by turntable 12. See, e.g., Shulman 4:68-5:5. Although rollers 42 and 44 of dancer roller assembly 60 rotate about their individual axes, this rotation does not constitute relative rotation between the load and the packaging material as claimed. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting independent claim 1, and claims 2-12, which depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 is REVERSED. REVERSED 3