Ex Parte Rees et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2019

14257603 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/257,603 04/21/2014
4743 7590 01/24/2019
MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
6300 WILLIS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6357
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AchimRees
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.
28363/48439 4866
EXAMINER
MADISON, XAVIER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2019 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ACHIM REES, THOMAS ANGST, and
ROBERT KUMMER
Appeal 2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 4--10, and 12-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 G&K-VIJUK INTERN. CORP. is the applicant and is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to folding a sheet of paper. Spec. ,r 1. Claim
1, reproduced below with italics added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system that forms informational items having
information printed thereon, the system comprising:
a first folding unit configured to form a first folded article
from a sheet of paper having information printed thereon, the
first folding unit defining a first linear travel path for the sheet of
paper and having a plurality of folding rollers configured to form
the sheet of paper into the first folded article by making a
plurality of folds parallel to a first folding direction in the sheet
of paper;
a second folding unit defining a second linear travel path
that is perpendicular to the first linear travel path and operatively
coupled downstream of the first folding unit to receive the first
folded article, the second folding unit being configured to form
a second folded article by making at least one fold in the first
folded article parallel to a second folding direction that is
perpendicular to the first folding direction;
a tum unit operatively coupled downstream of the second
folding unit to receive the second folded article, the tum unit
defining an inlet disposed on a third linear travel path that is
coextensive with the second linear travel path and an outlet
disposed on a fourth linear travel path that is perpendicular to the
second and third travel paths such that the tum unit receives the
second folded article from the second folding unit through the
inlet and conveys the second folded article along the third linear
travel path to the fourth linear travel path to the outlet, the tum
unit further including:
a first belt segment and a second belt segment
arranged in opposition to each other and configured to grip the
second folded article therebetween, and
a plurality of guide rollers arranged along a curve
to guide the first and second belt segments along a curved travel
path between the third and fourth travel paths, each of the guide
2
Appeal2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
rollers being rotatable about a respective rotational axis that is
parallel to a first axial direction; and
a third folding unit defining a fifth linear travel path that is
coextensive with the fourth linear travel path and operatively
coupled to the tum unit to receive the second article from the
outlet of the tum unit, the third folding unit being configured to
form a third folded article by making at least one fold in the
second article parallel to the second folding direction.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4--10, and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0069214 Al, published Mar. 18,
2010) and Trudeau (US 2010/0032894 Al, published Feb. 11, 2010).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Neubauer discloses many of the limitations
of claim 1, including a plurality of folding units, but relies on Trudeau to
disclose a tum unit having a plurality of guide rollers arranged along a
curve. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of
the claimed invention, to incorporate a tum unit between the folding units of
Neubauer to "allow the feed path to be produced into an L-shape or U-shape
to accommodate a customer facility." Final Act. 5. In support of the
rejection, the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 2 of Trudeau
and states that rollers 48, 52, and 54 of Trudeau's tum unit are arranged
along a curve. Ans. 2-3. A copy of the Examiner's annotated Figure 2 is
reproduced below:
3
Appeal2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
Annotated Figure 2 of Trudeau is a profile view of a Right Angle Tum
(RAT) module including first and second re-directing bends and a twist
section disposed between the re-directing bends. Trudeau ,r 9.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Trudeau does not disclose a
plurality of guide rollers arranged along a curve as recited in claim 1 because
Trudeau uses "single rolling elements to effect turns, each subjecting the belt
segments to 90 degree turns or greater." Appeal Br. 11. According to
Appellant, Trudeau's "triangular path extending between the rollers
identified by the [Examiner] ( 48, 52, 54)" is not a reasonable interpretation
of a plurality of guide rollers that are arranged along a curve. Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification,
limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Appellant's Specification
discloses that the guide rollers "bend the transport belt segments 510, 514
and thus redirect the folded article 390 from the travel path P8 to the travel
path P9 ... to bend the transport belt segments 510, 514 ... along a
relatively large diameter curve." Spec. ,r 54, Fig. 10. Thus, in light of the
Specification, the plurality of guide rollers form a single redirect along the
same curve or arc. Indeed, Appellant describes that instead of a plurality of
guide rollers, a single guide roller can be used (see Spec. ,r 54) that imparts
one bend to the transport belt segments along a curve.
Trudeau discloses that "rolling element 48 rotates ... to direct the
opposed belt segments 22, 24 up the inclined section 40 toward the first re-
directing bend 42." Trudeau ,r 19. Trudeau also discloses that "first re-
directing bend 42 is effected by a rolling element 52 ... which redirects the
opposed belt segments 22, 24 and, the course/direction of the sheet collation
28 ... vertically downwardly toward the second re-directing bend 46 ...
effected by a rolling element 54." Trudeau ,r,r 20-22. Although we
appreciate the Examiner's position that the exact location of the plurality of
rollers is not explicitly claimed (see Ans. 3), claim 1 requires that the
plurality of rollers are arranged along a curve, and in light of the
Specification, the curve forms an arc having a single redirect. We agree
5
Appeal2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
with Appellant that Trudeau's rolling elements 48, 52, and 54 each have a
separate bend so that rolling element 48 directs the belt segments up the
incline, rolling element 52 performs a first redirect, and rolling element 54
performs a second redirect. See Appeal Br. 11. In light of the Specification,
the Examiner's position that Trudeau's tum unit "includes a plurality of
guide rollers (48, 52, & 54) arranged along a curve to guide the first (22) and
second belt segments (24) along a curved travel path" (Ans. 2), is based on
an unreasonably broad interpretation of a curve, as recited in claim 1,
because it includes multiple curves each redirecting the belt segments along
a different curved travel path. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) ("The protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation ... does not include giving claims a legally incorrect
interpretation.").
For the reasons discussed above and in light of our construction of
claim 1, we determine that the Examiner's finding that Trudeau discloses a
tum unit that includes "a plurality of guide rollers arranged along a curve,"
as recited in claim 1, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Neubauer and Trudeau. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 4--7,
which depend from claim 1, for the same reason. The Examiner rejects
independent claims 8 and 18 based on the same findings as for the rejection
of claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. We do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 18, as well as claims 9, 10, and 12-17 depending from claim 8,
and claims 19-23 depending from claim 18, as unpatentable over Neubauer
and Trudeau for the same reasons as stated above for the rejection of claim
1.
6
Appeal2018-004829
Application 14/257,603
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--10, and 12-23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7