Ex Parte Ruhe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

10624305 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TOM RUHE and JIANGXIAO MO
____________

Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 12. Br. 1-2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention involves a variable support structure and media
sheet separator with varying degrees of resistance along the length of the
Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305

2
separator. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶ 29. Claim 12 is provided below
with certain disputed limitations emphasized:
12. A sheet media input structure for a sheet media processing device,
comprising:
a sheet media supporting surface; and
a media sheet separator downstream from the supporting surface
along a media path that extends from the supporting surface to and along the
separator, the separator configured to separate a top sheet on the stack from
a next-to-top sheet in the stack by resisting the movement of sheets along the
media path; and wherein
the separator comprises a span of flexible material and a plurality of
supports supporting the span, the supports oriented relative to one another
such that the degree of resistance of the separator to the movement of sheets
along the media path varies along the length of the separator from a greater
resistance at an upstream part of the separator to a lesser resistance at a
downstream part of the separator.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Olson (US 5,269,506; issued Dec. 14, 1993). 1 Ans. 3-4.2

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Olson discloses every recited feature of
independent claim 12 including a sheet media supporting surface and a
media sheet separator downstream from the supporting surface along a

1 We note that only the rejection of claim 12 was maintained in the Answer.
Ans. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed
September 16, 2009, and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
December 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305

3
media path. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner further finds that Olson discloses that
the separator comprises a span of flexible material and a plurality of
supports for supporting the span, wherein the supports are oriented relative
to one another so the degree of resistance varies along the length of the
separator. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that the upstanding portions 36
disclosed in Olson are oriented relative to the pad 32 so that the degree of
resistance of the separator varies along the length of the separator. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that Olson does not teach the following limitations
in Claim 12:
1. supports oriented relative to one another such that the
degree of resistance varies along the length of the separator;
2. a span of flexible material; and
3. a plurality of supports supporting the span.
Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants argue that the “[u]pstanding portions 36 on
body 30 do not support pad 32. Rather, upstanding portions 36 extend
through pad 32.” Br. 7. Therefore, Appellants argue that upstanding
portions 36 do not anticipate the “plurality of supports” recited in claim 12.
Id.
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by finding
that Olson discloses all elements of the claim?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 12. The Examiner finds that Olson discloses a separator
26 having a pad 32 that corresponds to the claimed “span of flexible
material” and upstanding portions 36 that correspond to the claimed
Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305

4
“plurality of supports.” Ans. 4 (quoting claim 12). The separator 26, pad
32, and upstanding portions 36 are illustrated in Figures 3 and 5 from Olson
reproduced below:

Olson’s Figures 3 and 5 show a perspective view of an embodiment of
the separator 26 having pad 32 and upstanding portions 36.

The Examiner finds that Olson discloses that the “degree of resistance of the
separator to the movement of sheets along the media path varies along the
length of the separator.” Ans. 4 (citing claim 12). Specifically, the
Examiner cites the disclosure in Olson that the “paper-to-pad frictional force
for the second sheet is thus greater than the paper-to-paper frictional forces
between the first and second sheets and the papers are separated as they
enter the input port.” Ans. 4-5 (citing Olson, col. 4, ll. 10-15). Appellants
argue on multiple grounds that this disclosure in Olson fails to anticipate
claim 12.
First, Appellants argue that “the Examiner does not explain in the
final Action which part in Olson is the claimed span of flexible material and
which parts are the claimed plurality of supports.” Br. 7 (emphases
omitted). Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner clearly maps the
Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305

5
claimed span of flexible material to Olson’s “pad 32” and the claimed
plurality of supports to Olson’s “upstanding portions 36.” Ans. 4.
Second, Appellants argue that “[u]pstanding portions 36 on body 30
do not support pad 32. Rather, upstanding portions 36 extend through pad
32.” Br. 7. While it is accurate that the upstanding portions 36 of Olson
extend through the pad, the Examiner finds that the orientation of
“upstanding portions 36 is supporting resilient pad 32 and preventing the pad
from moving.” Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Fig. 3-5 also
clearly suggested that upstanding portion 36 holding the span of pad 32 in
place.” Ans. 6 (emphasis added). As shown in Figures 3 and 5 above, the
protrusion of upstanding portions 36 into the pad 32 supports the span and at
least aids in holding pad 32 in place. We see no error in the Examiner’s
position that Olson discloses the claimed “plurality of supports supporting
the span.”
Appellants further argue that the “higher friction region 42 in Olson is
achieved by omitting upstanding portions 36,” instead of “varying the
orientation of underlying supports,” as required by claim 12. Br. 4, 7
(emphasis added). Appellants’ arguments, however, are not commensurate
with the scope of claim 12, because claim 12 does not recite “underlying
supports,” but rather “a plurality of supports supporting the span.”
The Examiner finds that the degree of resistance “varies along the
length of the separator” in Olson because Olson discloses “varying frictional
forces applied by the separator in different regions.” Ans. 5 (citing Olson,
col. 3, ll. 60-69). Appellants argue that “the mere presence of lower and
higher friction regions in Olson somehow necessarily implies supports
oriented as in Claim 12 is plainly not correct.” Br. 7. We are not persuaded
Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305

6
by Appellants’ arguments because claim 12 merely requires that the supports
be oriented relative to one another so that the degree of resistance varies
along the length of the separator. As found by the Examiner, the degree of
resistance of Olson’s separator 26 varies along its length as the orientation of
the supports in the upper portion of the pad 32 create a less resistant surface
that in the lower portion of the pad 32. Ans. 4-5 (citing Olson, col. 4, ll. 1-5
(“This relatively low frictional force is at least partially due to the
positioning of the upstanding portions, such portions offering a relatively
low frictional force in opposition to sheet passage as described above.”)).
Third, Appellants argue that “[r]esilient pad 32 in Olson is not a span
of flexible material.” Br. 7. The portions of Olson quoted by the Examiner
contradict Appellants’ arguments. Ans. 6 (citing Olson, col. 3, ll. 45-55
(“The pad is formed from a frictionally adherent material such as rubber, and
is effective in selectively opposing passage of paper thereacross.”)).
Accordingly we find no error in the Examiner’s findings that Olson discloses
a span of flexible material.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 12 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 12 is affirmed. No time
period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2010-006392
Application 10/624,305

7

babc