Ex Parte Merin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 2012

11245271 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PETER MERIN, PERTTI HELLGREN, and JARI REHU ____________________ Appeal 2010-005869 Application 11/245,271 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005869 Application 11/245,271 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Seaberg (US 5,417,464; iss. May 23, 1995). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method and an apparatus for handling loads, especially easily damageable goods, like paper rolls or household appliances, with a gripper provided with arms capable of clamping the load by applying a compressive force to the load wherein the compressive force is adjusted on the basis of the slippage measured with slip sensors between the load and the contact pads attached to the arms. Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Independent claims 18 and 27 are the only claims on appeal, and claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 18. A method of monitoring a compressive force on goods, the method comprising: providing drive signals to at least one drive unit arranged to rotate at least one rotatable sensor included in arms used to apply a compressive force to the goods; monitoring the at least one rotatable sensor to determine whether or not the at least one rotatable sensor is rotating; and determining at least one of a proper operation of the at least one rotatable sensor and a proper contact between contact pads of the arms and the goods based on the monitoring step. Appeal 2010-005869 Application 11/245,271 3 OPINION Independent method claim 18 recites that the at least one drive unit is “arranged to rotate at least one rotatable sensor included in arms used to apply a compressive force to the goods.” Similarly, independent claim 27 is directed to an apparatus that includes, “at least one drive unit arranged to rotate the at least one sensor.” Appellants present a single argument for independent claims 18 and 27 without distinguishing between the claims, and therefore our analysis of claim 18 is applicable to claim 27. See Br. 3-5. It is uncontested that Seaberg discloses a load clamping system having drive units (hydraulic cylinders 30, 32) that include arms (arms 20, 22) used to apply a compressive force to goods. Ans. 3; Br. 3; Seaberg, col. 5, ll. 16- 21; fig. 2. Further, it is uncontested that as Seaberg’s drive units (hydraulic cylinders 30, 32) apply a compressive force to goods via the arms (arms 20, 22), roller 1241 contacts the surface of the goods, causing a small amount of rotation of roller 124 that tests the operability of the slip sensing system. Ans. 3; Br. 3-4; Seaberg, col. 10, l. 45-col. 11, l. 28; figs. 5A, 8. Rather, the dispute in this case is whether such disclosure corresponds to at least one drive unit arranged to rotate at least one rotatable sensor as called for in claim 18. See Br. 4; Ans. 3-4. Appellants argue that Seaberg’s drive units (hydraulic cylinders 30, 32) rotate the arms, but that the rotatable sensor (roller 124) is rotated by contact with the goods. Br. 4. Appellants’ argument is not accompanied by an explicit claim construction. Br. 3-4. 1 Seaberg’s roller 124 is part of a rotatable sensor as claimed in that incremental optical encoder 136 measures rotation of roller 124 about a horizontal axis (flexible connector 134). See Seaberg, col. 8, l. 67-col. 9, l. 6; figs. 1, 2, 7, 8. Appeal 2010-005869 Application 11/245,271 4 The Examiner acknowledges that Seaberg’s rotatable sensor (roller 124) is rotated, in part, by contact with the goods, but contends that claim 18 does not preclude such an interpretation. Ans. 4. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Examiner. As the Examiner correctly points out, claim 18 does not require a specific linkage between the drive unit and the rotatable sensor. See Ans. 4. Further, claim 18 utilizes the open-ended term “comprising,” so that additional unrecited steps, such as contact of the rotatable sensor with an object, are within the scope of the claim. Cf. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 18. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 27. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Seaberg. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh