Ex Parte Pagendarm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2017

13881793 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/881,793 05/20/2013 Ralph Pagendarm BM-227 4410
7590 08/15/2017
LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP
30 BROAD STREET
21st FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2017 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):
info@lmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALPH PAGENDARM and PETER ROSE
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,7931
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants (hereinafter “Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 4—7.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as “OLBRICH GmbH” (Appeal Brief
filed November 20, 2011, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2).
2 Appeal Br. 5—19; Reply Brief filed June 20, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.,”
1—6; Final Office Action entered April 22, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2—
8; Examiner’s Answer entered April 19, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—11.
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
A. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a device for applying a free-
flowing medium to a continuously transported web, wherein the medium is
transferred to the web by a continuously rotating transfer (gravure) roll
(Abstract). Figure 1 of the subject application, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
$
AS
18 .. f?
;------- --
, \v \ -M
ra.:- -A-ii: f ■
\ 'Is v
l
, \ i"
'7s l * \ k
* / / \ \
* { ZZ I
14 / A
z±' I
20
-to
IS
mU%s
Figure 1 above depicts a device in accordance with the invention, wherein a
gravure cylinder 11 provided with grooves 12 rotates in a clockwise
direction to cause free-flowing medium 5, which is supplied by an applicator
head 10, to be transferred from the gravure grooves 12 to the bottom surface
of a web 4 (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1,1. 17—2,1. 4). The
2
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
Specification explains that the free-flowing medium 5 flows from an inlet 14
through chamber 13 towards an outlet 15 and that, between the inlet 14 and
the outlet 15, a compressed air line 21 extends upwardly into the applicator
head 10 in the direction toward gravure cylinder 11 and ends in a balloon 22,
on top of which is seated a movable thrust piece 23, which acts on a pressing
body 24, which in turn presses a front doctor blade 16, thereby affecting the
pressure in the chamber 13 and thus controlling the amount of free-flowing
medium 5 flowing out at a rear doctor blade 8 {id. at 3,1. 18-4,1. 21).
Representative claim 4, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced from page 20 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), with key
limitations highlighted in bolded italics, as follows:
4. A device for applying a free-flowing medium to a
continuously transported web, comprising:
a continuously rotating transfer roll formed as a gravure
cylinder provided with gravure grooves on its circumference;
an applicator head provided to transfer the free-flowing
medium to the circumference of the gravure cylinder, the
applicator head having a chamber open toward the circumference
of the gravure cylinder with an inlet and an outlet for the medium
to be applied;
a front doctor blade arranged to bound an outer side of
the chamber at a front with respect to a direction of rotation-,
a rear doctor blade arranged to bound the outer side of the
chamber at a rear with respect to the direction of rotation, both
doctor blades resting with a sealing action on the
circumference of the gravure cylinder, and
a pressing body arranged to press the front doctor blade
against the circumference of the gravure cylinder with an
adjustable pressing force so as to change pressure in the
chamber and thereby influence an amount of the medium
flowing past the rear doctor blade,
wherein the pressing body determines a width of a two-
dimensional contact zone of the front doctor blade with the
gravure cylinder.
3
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
B. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which are listed as follows:
I. Claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Kramer et al.3
(hereinafter “Kramer”);
II. Claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Kramer in view of
Rantanen et al.4 (hereinafter “Rantanen”); and
III. Claims 4—7 as unpatentable over Fadner5 in view of
Rantanen.
(Ans. 2—11; Final Act. 2—8.)
C. DISCUSSION
Rejections I & II. With respect to claim 4, the Examiner finds that
Kramer describes, inter alia, a front doctor blade 16 and a rear doctor blade
27, wherein both doctor blades provide some degree of sealing action
against a glue cylinder 4 (Ans. 2—3) (citing Kramer, Figs. 2—3). The
Examiner further found that Kramer describes a pressing body defined by
elements 8, 9, and 21 to press the front doctor blade 16 against the
circumference of the glue cylinder 4 with an adjustable pressing force and
positioning so as to affect pressure in a glue chamber, thereby metering the
amount of glue flowing past the rear doctor blade 27 {id. at 3) (citing
Kramer, || 27—29 and Fig. 4).
3 US 2010/0101681 Al, published April 29, 2010.
4 US 5,286,526, issued February 15, 1994.
5 US 5,226,364, issued July 13, 1993.
4
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
The Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Examiner’s findings
regarding Kramer’s doctor blades constitute reversible error because
Kramer’s wiper 27—not scraper element 16—is at the front of the
longitudinal side of the glue applicator and distribution element 3, when
viewed with respect to rotational direction A of glue roller/cylinder 4
(Appeal Br. 9) (citing Kramer, Fig. 2 and 134). According to the Appellants
{id. at 10), Kramer’s wiper 27, which is at the front, has no influence on the
pressure in glue chamber 10.
We agree with the Appellants. As an initial matter, we interpret the
limitation “a front doctor blade ... at a front with respect to a direction of
rotation” to be referring to the forwardly-positioned doctor blade when
facing the direction of rotation of the gravure cylinder in a manner consistent
with the Applicants’ Specification and Drawings as a whole (see Applicants’
Fig. 1 above and, e.g., Spec. 3,11. 1—2). In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[CJlaims should always be read in light of the
specification and teachings in the underlying [application].”)
Under this interpretation, we find that Kramer does not describe a
“front doctor blade” that provides a “sealing action on the circumference of
the gravure cylinder” and, in concert with a pressing body, changes the
pressure in a chamber containing a free-flowing medium, thereby
influencing an amount of the medium flowing past a rear doctor blade, as
required by the disputed limitations of claim 4.
5
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
Specifically, Kramer’s Figure 2 is reproduced as follows:
Kramer’s Figure 2 above depicts an overhead view of a glue applicator
apparatus (gluing device 1), wherein the apparatus includes, inter alia: a
glue applicator and distribution element 3; a glue roller 4 that rotates in a
direction “A” to apply glue onto a bottle or container label 2 held on the
periphery of a label transport cylinder 5 that rotates in direction “B”; a glue
scraper 15 provided with a rail-shaped scraper element 16; and a
conventional wiper 27 in contact with the glue roller 4 on the forward
longitudinal side of the glue applicator and distributor element 3 with
reference to the direction of rotation “A” of the glue roller 4 (Kramer, || 23,
26, 34).
6
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
Although the Examiner asserts that Kramer’s scraper element 16
should be considered as the “front blade because it is in front of’ wiper 27,
such an interpretation is inconsistent with the Appellants’ Specification and
Drawings. Thus, even if the Examiner is correct that scraper element 16, in
cooperation with housing 6, influences the amount of glue to be coated, we
have not been directed to sufficient evidence that Kramer’s wiper 27—i.e.,
the front doctor blade—is pressed to “change pressure in the chamber and
thereby influence an amount of the medium flowing past the rear doctor
blade,” as required by claim 4.
Because this deficiency is present in both Rejections I and II, we
cannot sustain either of these two rejections.
Rejection III. The Examiner finds that Fadner describes every
limitation recited in claim 4 except it “does not set forth a pressing body
arranged to press the front doctor blade . . . against the circumference of the
gravure cylinder with an adjustable pressing force” (Ans. 4—5). The
Examiner finds, however, that it was known in the art to provide an
inflatable member or balloon compressed by a thrust piece assembly
arranged to press against a front doctor blade against a glue cylinder with an
adjustable pressing force to enable changes in chamber pressure, thereby
metering the amount of medium (glue) flowing past a rear doctor blade {id.
at 5) (citing Rantanen, Fig. 1 and col. 3,1. 45, et seq.). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes (id.):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate the pressing body as defined by the inflatable
member or balloon (18) compressed by thrust piece assembly
(16, 17) as taught by Rantanen into the Fadner device in order to
provide appropriate contact pressure and positioning of at least
7
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
one or more of the blades including the front blade against the
gravure cylinder to effect two-dimensional contact of
predetermined metered coating of the transfer or gravure roll.
The Appellants argue that, in Fadner, “[t]he adjustment of the quantity
of the coating medium that passes the doctor blade 62 is only influenced by
the setting of the pressure force of the doctor blade 62” (Appeal Br. 12)
(citing Fadner, Figs. 4—5). According to the Appellants {id.), Fadner does
not teach a front doctor blade that is pressed by a pressing body with an
adjustable pressing force so as to change pressure in a chamber containing a
free-flowing medium, thereby influencing the amount of medium flowing
past a rear doctor blade, as required by claim 4. The Appellants argue that,
instead, Fadner teaches a sealing element 68 that does not perform the
function of a doctor blade “but [is] rather an element that equalizes the
pressure drop in the chamber (44)” {id. at 13). In addition, the Appellants
argue that neither Fadner nor Rantanen would have suggested a front doctor
blade that is pressed by a pressing body in the manner as recited in claim 4
{id. at 16). Specifically, the Appellants argue that “[s]ince the rear doctor
blade is adjustable in Fadner for controlling the thickness of the medium
applied to the roller[,] there is no need for making the seal 68 adjustable as
suggested by the Examiner” {id.).
We agree with the Appellants on this issue as well. The Supreme
Court of the United States stated that “a patent composed of several
elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). According to the Supreme Court,
“it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person
8
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.” Id.
Here, the rejection lacks a sufficient articulated reason with some
rational underpinning to support a conclusion that a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner claimed by
the Appellants. Specifically, Fadner’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:
Fadner’s Figure 5 above depicts a cross-sectional view of a printing fluid
input apparatus, wherein ink is fed through a cavity 44 in housing 42 by
means of lines 69 and 71, which are attached to an input port 102 and an
output port 104 such that ink is metered onto metering roll 20, which rotates
in the direction indicated (Fadner, col. 7,1. 21—col. 8,1. 50). According to
9
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
Fadner (col. 8,11. 1—10), the thickness of the thin film of printing fluid
metered onto the surface of the metering roll 20 is controlled by varying the
amplitude or strength of ultrasonic vibrations on a reverse angle doctor blade
62, “thereby changing the time-average tightness of contact between the
blade and [the] metering roller [20]. . . .” Fadner further teaches that
doctoring element 73 “helps to assure that... a uniform composition film is
available at the ultrasonically activated portion of the cavity, that is, at the
location of the reverse angle metering doctor blade 62” (Fadner, col. 8,11.
45—50), while sealing member 68 “properly seals” chamber 44 {id., col. 7,11.
37-44).
Rantanen’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
10
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
Rantanen’s Figure 1 above depicts a coating device 10 comprising a coating-
agent chamber 11, which is defined by a coating blade 12 and a front seal 13
(relative to a moving base B moving in a direction “D”) (Rantanen, col. 3,11.
23—34). Rantanen teaches (col. 4,11. 26—35):
By means of the second loading member 18, it is possible
to prevent rising of the tip 19 of the coating blade 12 from the
face of the base B to be coated, which is also a primary objective
of the invention. By means of the first loading member 15, the
quantity of the coating agent is regulated in the conventional
way. Thus, by means of the invention, separation of the tip 19
of the coating blade from the coating-agent layer F formed can
be prevented, whereby no cavitation occurs in the area of the tip
19 of the coating blade.
The collective teachings in Fadner and Rantanen are insufficient to
support a conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to modify Fadner’s sealing member 68 to be pressed by
Rantanen’s adjusting device 16, holder 17, and loading hose 18, as
suggested by the Examiner. The Examiner does not direct us to sufficient
evidence or reasoning why Fadner’s sealing member 68 would be subject to
any rising problem as is the case for Rantanen’s tip 19 of coating blade 12
such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted
to implement Rantanen’s adjusting mechanism in Fadner. Although the
Examiner concludes that the modification would have been made to Fadner
“in order to provide appropriate contact pressure and positioning of at least
one or more of the blades including the front blade against the gravure
cylinder to effect two-dimensional contact of predetermined metered coating
of the transfer or gravure roll” (Ans. 5), Fadner achieves metered coating by
means of the rear doctor blade (i.e., reverse angle doctor blade 62)—not the
front doctor blade 73 or sealing member 68 (Fadner, col. 8,11. 1—10).
11
Appeal 2016-006572
Application 13/881,793
For these reasons, we cannot sustain Rejection III.
D. SUMMARY
Rejections I—III are reversed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 4—7 is reversed.
REVERSED
12