Ex Parte Rosam et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201714028012 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/028,012 09/16/2013 Markus Rosam 04893-P0053B 7930 131672 7590 05/17/2017 Whitmyer IP Group LLC 600 Summer Street 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARKUS ROSAM, MIKAEL TEKNEYAN, and HISHAM KAMAL ____________________ Appeal 2015-001840 Application 14/028,012 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Markus Rosam et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1–22. An oral hearing was held on May 16, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1 We REVERSE. 1 In a paper filed August 15, 2016, Appellants requested remand to the Examiner based on a prior Board decision in a related case. Our rules to not provide for such remand. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.35. Appeal 2015-001840 Application 14/028,012 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A feeding device for in-line screw machines with a shaft that rotates in a feed container and exhibits a screw that conveys in the direction toward the longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft, a first disk wheel is allocated to a first longitudinal side in the feed container, a second disk wheel is allocated to a second longitudinal side in the feed container, characterized in that the first disk wheel is rotated by a first drive, the second disk wheel is rotated by a second drive separate from the first drive, the first drive and second drive are separate from the shaft that rotates in the feed container and exhibits the screw that conveys in the direction toward the longitudinal axis of the rotating shaft, and the first disk wheel and the second disk wheel are separately powered by first drive and second drive, respectively. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Tauriainen Mason Gericke Ikeda US 1,755,674 US 3,377,000 US 4,496,083 US 4,989,761 Apr. 22, 1930 Apr. 9, 1968 Jan. 29, 1985 Feb. 5, 1991 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, and 5–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tauriainen. II. Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tauriainen and Gericke. III. Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tauriainen and Ikeda. Appeal 2015-001840 Application 14/028,012 3 IV. Claims 12–19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tauriainen, Ikeda, and Mason. V. Claims 12, 13, and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tauriainen, Gericke, and Mason. DISCUSSION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Tauriainen discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds that Tauriainen discloses separate power sources 17 which “may be separate from the screw 9 as disclosed on page 1, lines 77–90 in order to drive the wheels 12 at a separate speed from the screw 9.” Id. Appellants argue that “Tauriainen fails to disclose, teach, or suggest that the first drive and the second drive are separate from the shaft that rotates in the feed container.” Appeal Br. 6. Tauriainen states: A transverse horizontal shaft 15 is mounted in appropriate bearings 16 at the outer end 14 of the hopper 5 and two vertical spur gears 17 are secured to this shaft, said gears meshing with the gears 13 toward the hopper end 14. While the gears 17 are vertical and the gears 13 inclined, I find that with loose meshing, I can cause said gears 17 to satisfactorily drive the gears 13 for the purpose of rotating the agitators 12. Tauriainen, p. 1, ll. 59–68 (emphasis added). Tauriainen further states: Suitable provision is preferably made for driving the shaft 15 by means of the same motor which drives the screw conveyor 9 and as it may be advisable to drive the agitators 12 at different speeds according to the character of the fuel or the like being fed, provision may be made for attaining this end. Upon shaft 15, I have shown a relatively large spur gear 18 and upon a motor driven shaft 19 I have shown comparatively small and large gears Appeal 2015-001840 Application 14/028,012 4 20-21. Gear 20 is shown in mesh with gear 18 but appropriate provision may be made whereby the necessary movement of parts may take place to allow the larger gear 21 to mesh with said gear 18, thereby driving the latter at a greater speed. Id. at ll. 74–90 (emphasis added). Thus, we understand the different speeds of wheels 12 obtained by Tauriainen’s gears to be the result of differences in gear size/ratio, rather than separate drives. More specifically, as Tauriainen’s motor drives shaft 15, wheels 17, and screw 9, Tauriainen fails to teach that “the first drive and second drive are separate from the shaft that rotates in the feed container” and “the first disk wheel and the second disk wheel are separately powered by first drive and second drive, respectively” as required by independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 30. Accordingly, the Examiner’s findings are in error. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 1, and claims 2 and 5–8 which depend therefrom, as anticipated by Tauriainen. Rejections II–V The Examiner’s remaining rejections rely upon the same erroneous findings as Rejection I discussed supra. See Final Act. 2–5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decisions as set forth in Rejections II–V. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22 are REVERSED. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation