Ex Parte Lundgren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

13643025 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/643,025 01114/2013
21186 7590 05/03/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Christer Lundgren
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.
l 876.223US 1 6618
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTER LUNDGREN and JAN NILSSON
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MARK A. GEIER, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christer Lundgren and Jan Nilsson (Appellants) 1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision, dated November 20, 2014
("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over U.S. Patent No. 5,078,669, issued January 7, 1992 ("Dietrich") and
U.S. Patent No. 5,662,577, issued September 2, 1997 ("Reuteler").2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 The identified real party in interest is Norden Machinery AB. Br. 2.
2 Claims 10-15 are pending, but have been withdrawn from consideration.
Final Act. 1.
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "a carton feeder device
for a conveyor track." Spec. 1, 11. 3-4. Of the claims before us on appeal,
claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A carton feeding device for feeding cartons having
at least a front wall and a rear wall to a continuously moving
conveyor track, comprising:
a pick-up head with a plurality of vacuum cups, and an
erecting finger pivotally suspended at the pick-up head, where
the pick-up head has a pick-up position (Pl) in which a holding
plane of the pick-up head is positioned parallel to the folded
carton blank that is to be picked up, and an insertion position (P2)
in which the erecting finger is pivoted with respect to the holding
plane of the pick-up head in such a way that the carton is opened,
and where the carton is held with an angle a between the holding
plane of the pick-up head and a bearing surface of the erecting
finger,
and where the pick-up head holds the carton by an upper
wall, wherein the angle a differs from 90 degrees with at least 10
degrees in the insertion position (P2), that the carton is inserted
between two parallel teeth of the conveyor track, where the teeth
are parallel at the insertion position of the carton, such that the
front wall and rear wall of the carton are substantially vertical in
the insertion position, and that the distance between the teeth is
substantially equal to the width w of the upper wall of the carton
at the insertion position of the carton, and where the pick-up head
moves continuously along the conveyor track during the
insertion of the carton.
Br. 12 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, that "the teeth [of the continuously
moving conveyor] are parallel at the insertion position of the carton, such
that the front wall and rear wall of the carton are substantially vertical in the
insertion position, and that the distance between the teeth is substantially
equal to the width w of the upper wall of the carton at the insertion position
of the carton." Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Examiner found that Dietrich discloses a carton feeding device as
called for in claim 1 in which the distance between the teeth of the conveyor
are substantially equal to the width of the upper wall of the carton and the
front wall and rear wall of the carton are substantially vertical in the
insertion position. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Dietrich, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner
found, however, that in Dietrich, the pick-up head does not hold the carton
by an upper wall wherein the claimed angle a differs from 90 degrees by at
least 10 degrees in the insertion position, and the teeth of the conveyor of
Dietrich are not parallel at the insertion position. Id. at 3; see also Ans. 5
(stating "[t]he office agrees that [Dietrich] does not disclose the claimed
insertion of the carton between two parallel conveyed teeth"). The
Examiner found that Reuteler discloses a carton feeding device with a pick-
up head that holds the carton by an upper wall so that the claimed angle a is
met at the insertion position and that inserts cartons between two conveying
teeth that are parallel at the insertion position. Final Act. 3 (citing Reuteler,
Figs. 1 and 5C). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious
to have modified Dietrich's carton feeding device to have:
3
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
the pick-up heads hold[] the carton by an upper wall wherein the
angle differs from 90 degrees with at least 10 degrees in the
insertion position, [and so] that the carton is inserted between
two parallel teeth of the conveyor track, where the teeth are
parallel at the insertion position of the carton, as suggested by
Reuteler, in order to avoid damaging the panels of the carton.
Id. at 3-4 (citing Reuteler, col. 2, 11. 45-50).
Appellants argue that if Dietrich were modified in the manner
claimed, and the teeth remained as disclosed in Dietrich to be spaced at
distance substantially equal to the width of the upper wall of the carton, then
the carton could not be inserted in the manner disclosed in Reuteler. Br. 9
(arguing that Reuteler teaches that the teeth must be spaced a distance
greater than the width of the upper wall of the carton at the insertion
position). For the reasons that follow, we are persuaded by Appellants that
the Examiner erred in determining that the combined teachings of Dietrich
and Reuteler would result in the claimed invention.
Reuteler discloses that as the open carton approaches the open carton
pocket of the transport conveyor, a side panel 19 of the carton 11' is engaged
by chain lug 24 of the transport conveyor, and the side panel of the carton is
urged forwardly so that the carton is rotated toward the transport conveyor,
which causes the carton to be further spread apart to complete the opening of
the carton as the carton is deposited in the open carton pocket. Reuteler,
col. 11, 11. 5-14. Reuteler discloses that once the carton is completely
4
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
opened, the vacuum is disrupted so that the carton is released from
engagement with the primary vacuum cup. Id., col. 11, 11. 14-20.3
As noted in the annotated Figure 1 of Reuteler provided on page 9 of
Appellants' Brief, in order to achieve Reuteler's method of depositing the
carton into the open carton pocket, the distance between the chain lugs that
define the open carton pocket must be wider than the width of the upper wall
of the carton. Based on the manner in which Reuteler teaches to effect
complete opening of the carton by engagement of the carton with the chain
lug as it is being deposited into the open carton pocket, we agree with
Appellants that if Dietrich were modified as suggested by the Examiner so
that the pick-up head holds the carton by an upper wall, wherein the angle a
differs from 90 degrees with at least 10 degrees at the insertion position, as
disclosed in Reuteler, then the size of the opening in Dietrich also would
have to be modified as in Reuteler to a size larger than the upper wall of the
carton.
The question remaining is whether the distance between the chain lugs
in Reuteler is "substantially equal" to the width w of the upper wall of the
carton, as called for in claim 1.
The Examiner, in response to Appellants' arguments, stated:
[T]he office maintains that the claimed broad term
"substantially" renders the followed limitations to be un-positive
limitations. Therefore, whatever claimed limitations followed by
3 We understand the insertion position to refer to the position of the pick-up
head at the point at which the carton is released from the pick-up head. See
Spec. 13, 11. 17-22.
5
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
the broad term "substantially" are not given much patentable
weight, as the claims are apparatus claims and only structure
limitation are given patentable weight.
Ans. 5. We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of "substantially."
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term "substantially" is
a term of degree. While the standard for measuring a term of degree need
not be defined with numerical specificity, the standard must be able to be
derived from information in the patent regarding the purpose of the
invention - or of the specific aspect of the invention to which the term of
degree applies - as well as from experimentation. See Seattle Box Co. v.
Indust. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731F.2d818, 820-21, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, Appellants' Specification describes:
There are several problems to overcome when an opened
carton is to be inserted between two teeth on a conveyor track
that moves continuously. One problem is that the insertion tool
must move with substantially the same speed as the conveyor
track. Another problem is that the position of the insertion tool
must correspond exactly to the position of the holding space
between the teeth where the carton is to be inserted. A further
problem is that the insertion tool must follow that position during
the complete insertion cycle and at the same time lower the
carton into the holding space. All of these requirements must be
fulfilled at a high speed and with a high repeatability. Different
approaches are used to overcome these problems. The most
common one is to insert the cartons at the infeed region of the
conveyor track, where the teeth are angled away from each other,
creating a larger opening into which the carton is inserted. When
the teeth are parallel again, the carton will be held securely in
6
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
position. Another solution would be to increase the distance
between the teeth, i.e. to increase the tolerances for the insertion,
in order to allow the conveyor track to move some during the
insertion. The disadvantage of this is that the carton is not held
in a secure and predefined position on the conveyor track.
Another solution would be to stop or slow down the conveyor
track during the insertion. Such a solution will decrease the
throughput.
Spec. 11, 1. 23-12, 1. 13. The Specification further describes that "[i]n the
present invention, the insertion of a carton is made between two teeth that
are parallel, that moves continuously and that will be able to hold the carton
securely after the insertion, i.e. where the distance between the teeth
corresponds to the size of the erected carton." Id. at 13, 11. 3-6. In light of
this description provided in the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the claim language "the distance between the teeth is
substantially equal to the width w of the upper wall of the carton at the
insertion position of the carton" to mean that the that the distance between
the teeth is largely but not wholly equal to the width of the upper wall of the
carton such that the carton will be held securely between the teeth after
insertion. 4
We find that the distance between the chain lugs of Reuteler are not
"substantially equal" to the width of the upper wall of the carton because
space would necessarily have to exist to allow for complete opening of the
4 An ordinary meaning of "substantially" is "being largely but not wholly
that which is specified." www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
substantially, last visited on April 27, 2016.
7
Appeal2016-003652
Application 13/643,025
carton during insertion into the open carton pocket, and that space would not
allow for the carton to be held securely between the teeth after insertion.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dietrich and Reuteler.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8