Ex Parte Rosam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2017

14028012 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 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.
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