Ex Parte Schnabel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12252762 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

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.
12/252,762 10/16/2008 Holger Schnabel 4581 8036
7590 04/18/2016
STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
EXAMINER
CULLER, JILL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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 HOLGER SCHNABEL, STEPHAN SCHULTZE, and
ULRICH DITTMAYER1
____________

Appeal 2014-006279
Application 12/252,762
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–25, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed October 22, 2013
(“Final Act.”); Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed January 15, 2014 (“Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 5, 2014 (“Ans.”); and the Specification
filed October 16, 2008 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2014-006279
Application 12/252,762

2
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–19, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schuppan (US 6,866,434 B2, issued Mar. 15, 2005)
(“Schuppan”) and Dreher et al. (US 6,619,209 B2, issued Sep. 16, 2003)
(“Dreher”). Final Act. 2.
Claims 20 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schuppan, Dreher, and Lasken et al. (US 5,805,280,
issued Sep. 8, 1998) (“Lasken”). Final Act. 7.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schuppan, Dreher, and Brunetti et al. (US 4,932,320,
issued June 12, 1990) (“Lasken”). Final Act. 8.

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to a marking
sensor . . . and to a method for evaluating the markings.” Spec. 3.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a processing machine and independent
claim 8 is directed to a method. Br. 17–19. Claim 1 recites:
A processing machine comprising a marking sensor and a
control device, wherein the marking sensor is electrically
connected to the control device and comprises:
a detection unit for detecting markings on a processed
material being moved at a transport speed and processed in a
processing machine and, for acquiring data based on the
detected markings;

at least one circuit output for outputting the acquired
data;

an evaluation unit for determining distances between the
detected markings, the dimensions for the detected markings or
Appeal 2014-006279
Application 12/252,762

3
both, as absolute output data of the detected markings based on
the data acquired by the detection unit; and

an interface for outputting the absolute output data to the
control device;

wherein the detection unit, the at least one circuit, the
evaluation unit and the interface are arranged as a single,
integrated unit configured to receive the transport speed as
speed data via the interface, a sensor input or both to calculate
the absolute data based on the transport speed.

Br. 17.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–25 in light of
Appellants’ arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded
that Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in Final Office
Action (Final Act. 2–11) and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2–4). We
highlight the following for emphasis.

Claims 1–19, 21, 23, and 24
Appellants argue claims 1–19, 21, 23, and 24 as a single group. Br.
9–15. These claims are subject to the same ground of rejection. Final Act.
2. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(iv), we shall decide this appeal as to this
group of claims on the basis of claim 1.
Appellants argue that Schuppan fails to teach an evaluation unit that
determines absolute output data of the detected markings based on data
acquired by the detection unit. Br. 11–12. Specifically, Appellants argue,
“while the stated rejection asserts that Shuppan’s evaluation unit 106
Appeal 2014-006279
Application 12/252,762

4
determines ‘absolute output data’ on the detected markings based on the data
acquired by the detection unit (see page 3, lines 4–5 of the final Office
Action), this is not factually accurate.” In the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner responds:
sensor 110 detects markings on a processed material and
acquires data based on the detected markings, and subsequently
control unit 106 conditions the results transmitted by the sensor,
for example by preprocessing the data, etc. (see column 8, lines
30–49 [of Schuppan]) and therefore is considered to determine
absolute output data based on the data acquired by the detection
unit.

Ans. 2. The Examiner’s findings are supported by Schuppan and Appellants
fail to explain how the Examiner erred.
Appellants argue, “Dreher does not calculate absolute data as the
distances between markings on the printed/processed material, so cannot
overcome the shortcomings of Schuppan.” Br. 14. Specifically, as shown in
Figure 2 of Dreher, Appellants argue, “Dreher mark {5} is applied to the
conveyor belt {1} and mark {6} is applied to the print material.” Id. In the
Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner responds:
In response to the further argument on page 14, that
Dreher does not calculate absolute data as the distances
between markings on the printed/processed material, although
the marks of Dreher are not both located on the same material,
the reference suggests that it is useful to determine the distance
[between] two markings which [are] being moved at a transport
speed and processed in a processing machine. The fact that
Dreher has a different reason for calculating the distance
between detected markings does not overcome the teaching that
this is a known application for a sensor unit is such a processing
machine and therefore it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
the teachings of Schuppan to include such measurements.
Appeal 2014-006279
Application 12/252,762

5

Ans. 3–4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. And, here
again, Appellants fail to explain how the Examiner erred.
Appellants argue that Shuppan fails to teach an integrated sensor
marker as claimed. Br. 13. Claim 1 recites, “the detection unit, the at least
one circuit, the evaluation unit and the interface are arranged as a single,
integrated unit.” Br. 17. However, Appellants acknowledge that the
detection unit, at least one circuit output, the evaluation unit and the
interface are all part of the printer depicted in Schuppan. Br. 13.
Specifically, the Appeal Brief states:
Moreover, as Schupann’s detecting unit (image sensor)
110 is part of sensor arrangement 107, it follows that the
detecting unit (image sensor) 110, the at least one circuit
output, the evaluation (control) unit 106 and the interface 104,
while part of the printer, cannot be said to be an integrated
sensor marker, as claimed. Schuppan therefore, cannot offer
the benefit of a sensor marker with the claimed elements
including inter alia the detection unit and evaluation unit
integrated as a whole.

Id. Appellants fail to explain why the printer of Schuppan is not a “single,
integrated unit.” To the contrary, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“single, integrated unit” includes a single device such as taught by Schuppan
because all of the claimed components are part of a single, integrated printer.
Thus, we have considered Appellants’ arguments and are not
persuaded. We sustain the rejection of claims 1–19, 21, 23, and 24.

Appeal 2014-006279
Application 12/252,762

6
Dependent Claims 20, 22, and 25
Appellants do not present separate arguments in support of dependent
claims 20, 22, and 25. Br. 15–16. We sustain the rejection of these claims
for the reasons stated above with regard to the claims from which they
depend.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–25 are 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