Ex Parte Walsh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

13407871 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
13/407,871 02/29/2012 Martin R Walsh 20110508-US-NP 6063
71903 7590 03/27/2017
WILLIAM A. HENRY , II
XEROX CORPORATION
PATENT DOCUMENTATION CENTER
100 CLINTON AVE SOUTH , XRX2-020
ROCHESTER, NY 14644
EXAMINER
CICCHINO, PATRICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
u sa. ogc. docket @ xerox .com
Office Action @ xerox, com
Gail. Mcmillan @ xerox .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN R. WALSH, IAN A. PARKS,
COLIN JON PARTRIDGE, JUSTIN CHASE, and
MARTIN LLOYD
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Martin R. Walsh et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—8, which are the
only pending claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watase
(US 2005/0073088 Al, pub. Apr. 7, 2005) and Kim (US 7,296,790 B2, iss.
Nov. 20, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Xerox
Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A media transport jam clearance system for engaging a media
sheet fed from a stack of media sheets and returning the engaged
sheet to the media stack, the system comprising:
a feed roll, carried on a feed roll shaft adjacent the stack;
a retard roll, carried on a retard roll shaft, the retard roll
being loaded against the feed roll to create a feed nip lying in a
media transport path;
a nudger roll, carried on a nudger roll shaft positioned
above the media stack;
a drive motor operatively coupled to the feed roll shaft,
retard roll shaft and the nudger roll shaft;
a feed clutch engageably coupling the feed roll shaft to
drive the feed roll shaft in a feed direction to propel media sheets
from the media stack to the media transport path;
a slip clutch engageably coupling the retard roll shaft to
drive the retard roll shaft in a direction opposite the feed
direction, the slip clutch breakaway torque being below the
torque imposed by the media sheet; and
wherein, in a clear jam state, the feed clutch is disengaged
from the feed roll shaft and the nudger roll shaft, and the slip
clutch is engaged to the retard roll shaft to rotate the retard roll
and drive the sheet in the direction opposite the feed direction;
and wherein said nudger roll is simultaneously raised in response
to said clear jam state to facilitate driving said sheet in said
direction opposite to the feed direction.
DISCUSSION
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for dependent
claims 2, 3, and 6—8 apart from their dependence from independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13. We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims
2, 3, and 6—8 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
The Examiner finds that Watase discloses a media transport jam
clearance system as recited in claim 1, including a nudger roll in a raised
position when the apparatus is in a clear jam state, except that “Watase fails
to specifically disclose when and how the nudger [roll] is raised.” Final Act.
5; Ans. 2—3 (citing Figs. 11—14 of Watase as showing the apparatus in a
clear jam state, with the nudger roll raised); see Watase, paras. 35
(disclosing that, when the driving motor initially starts, “pickup roller 2 is
kept separated from the uppermost sheet P on the sheet feeding tray 1,” and
the feed clutch is “turned OFF”), 38 (disclosing that, after feed and reverse
rollers 3 and 4 pinch sheet P fed from sheet feeding tray 1, “pickup roller 2
may preferably be separated from the uppermost sheet P on the sheet
feeding tray”). The Examiner finds that “Kim discloses a similar feeding
device wherein when power is not transmitted to the feed roller (i.e. [,]
during a jam/re versing of the sheet), the nudger [roll] is raised.” Final Act.
5—6. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify
Watase’s device “with the nudger taught by Kim to achieve the predictable
result of preventing interference of the nudger when reversing a sheet (as
taught by Watase, see figures 11-14).” Id. at 6. The Examiner explains that
such a device of the combination of Watase and Kim would raise the nudger
roll automatically at the determination of a clear jam state (i.e., jam
detection), by stopping or reversing the drive, and “therefore simultaneously
raise the nudger [roll] due to the construction of the sheet feeding device.”
Ans. 2 (citing Kim, Fig. 3).
Appellants emphasize that claim 1 requires “a nudger roll to be
SIMULTANEOUSLY raised IN RESPONSE TO a clear jam state,” and
contend that “Kim teaches away from what [A]ppellants claim by raising the
3
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
pickup roller after each pickup operation . . . and has nothing to do with a
nudger being raised in response to a jam state as claimed.” Appeal Br.
12—13 (citing Kim 2:6—9, 5:60-63).
Kim discloses disengaging the feed clutch (power switching means
120) after each pickup operation, once a predetermined time has elapsed
after detecting the fed document at feed roller 106, which causes bracket 130
to rotate in second direction 302 under the biasing force of elastic member
140 to separate (i.e., raise) the nudger roll (pickup roller 103) from the
document stack. Kim 7:1—10; Figs. 2, 3. Thus, at least in the case of a
proper document feed, Appellants are correct that Kim discloses raising the
nudger roll (pickup roller 103) after each pickup.
Kim also discloses, however, that when a document is jammed
between ADF roller 104 and feed roller 106, as determined using detecting
sensor 109A, the feed clutch (power switching means 120) is disengaged,
thereby disconnecting shaft 110 from driving means 100, which
simultaneously causes bracket 130 to rotate in second direction 302 under
the biasing force of elastic member 140. Id. 4:22—25, 9:25—27, 7:3—10, Figs.
3,8. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contention, Kim does teach raising the
nudger roll (pickup roller 103) simultaneously in response to a clear jam
state.
The limitation in claim 1 relied on by Appellants to distinguish over
the combination of Watase and Kim (i.e., “wherein said nudger roll is
simultaneously raised in response to said clear jam state to facilitate driving
said sheet in said direction opposite to the feed direction”) specifies that the
nudger roll be raised in response to a clear jam state, but does not specify
explicitly with respect to what other occurrence the nudger roll is raised
4
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
simultaneously. The first “wherein” clause of claim 1 does not specify that
the feed clutch switches into a disengaged state and the slip clutch switches
into an engaged state simultaneously either with each other or with the
occurrence of a clear jam state, only that they be disengaged and engaged,
respectively, in a clear jam state. Thus, when considered in context with the
“wherein” clauses of claim 1 as a whole, the “simultaneously in response to
said clear jam state” limitation could be read as requiring the nudger roll to
be raised simultaneously with the feed clutch being disengaged from the
feed roll shaft, simultaneously with the slip clutch being engaged to the
retard roll shaft, simultaneously with the feed clutch being disengaged and
the slip clutch being engaged, simultaneously with the occurrence of a clear
jam state, or simultaneously with all three other occurrences (i.e., feed clutch
disengagement, slip clutch engagement, and a clear jam state).
Turning to Appellants’ Specification for guidance, we find that the
Specification does not use the term “simultaneously” in describing
Appellants’ invention, much less mention that the nudger roll, in particular,
is raised simultaneously with any other occurrence.2 Spec, passim. The
Specification discloses that Figure IB shows “a nudger roll in a raised
position in response to a downstream jam” (para. 11) and that “if desired, the
2 The Examiner alludes to this gap in the disclosure, hinting that the
Specification lacks support for the “simultaneously” limitation, but does not
reject the claims under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description and/or enablement requirements. Ans. 3. In the
event of further prosecution of the claimed subject matter, including the
“simultaneously” limitation, the Examiner may wish to consider whether a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with
the written description and/or enablement requirements, might be
appropriate.
5
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
nudger roll could be moveable between positions in contact with the top
sheet and raised out of such contact” (para. 17). The Specification contains
no other disclosure of the nudger roll being raised. Thus, Appellants’
Specification provides no guidance favoring any one of the aforementioned
possible interpretations of the “simultaneously” limitation of claim 1 over
the others.
Based on our findings above, Kim teaches disengaging the feed clutch
(power switching means 120) and, consequently, simultaneously raising the
nudger roll (pickup roller 103) in response to detecting a document jam.
Thus, Kim does not teach away from raising the nudger roll in response to a
clear jam state, as Appellants contend (Appeal Br. 12). Further, in the
combination of Watase, which discloses engaging the slip clutch (torque
limiter 6) when the feed clutch is disengaged (Watase, para. 35), with Kim’s
bracket/pickup roll raising/lowering arrangement, as proposed by the
Examiner, the nudger roll would be raised simultaneously with all three
other occurrences (i.e., feed clutch disengagement, slip clutch engagement,
and a clear jam state) mentioned in the “wherein” clauses of claim 1 in
response to a clear jam state, and thus, satisfies the “simultaneously”
limitation under any of the aforementioned interpretations.3
3 As discussed above, the combination of Watase and Kim set forth in the
rejection affirmatively performs the steps/functions set forth in the
“wherein” clauses of claim 1 under even the most restrictive/narrow
interpretation of the “simultaneously” limitation. Thus, we are able to reach
a conclusion that the combined teachings of Watase and Kim render obvious
the claimed subject matter without making a determination as to which of
the aforementioned possible interpretations is the broadest reasonable
interpretation. However, in the event of further prosecution of the claimed
subject matter, the Examiner may wish to consider, for clarification of the
record, whether the language in the “wherein” clauses of claim 1 is definite
6
Appeal 2015-002858
Application 13/407,871
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2, 3, and 6—8, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Watase and Kim.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—8 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
and, more particularly: (1) whether the scope of the “simultaneously”
limitation is clear, (2) whether the recitations in the “wherein” clauses are
method steps or functional language, and (3) if the recitations are functional
language, what structure, if any, is recited in the claim for performing these
functions.
7