Ex Parte Zoeckler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2012

12020859 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. ZOECKLER
____________________

Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael D. Zoeckler (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-25, 38, and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Campbell (US 1,600,396, iss.
Sep. 21, 1926), Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Seufert (US
4,733,916, iss. Mar. 29, 1988), and Knecht (US 5,393,295, iss. Feb. 28,
1995). The Examiner withdrew claims 26-37 from consideration, and
claims 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on November 15, 2012.
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 16, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method of making reinforced paperboard cartons
comprising the steps of:
(a) advancing a web of paperboard along a path, the
web of paperboard having a width;
(b) progressively applying at least one ribbon of
reinforcing material to the advancing web of
paperboard to form a reinforced region for the
carton, the ribbon having a width less than the
width of the web of paperboard and an edge;
(c) forming at least one fold line in the web of
paperboard, the at least one fold line extending
transversely to the reinforcing region and crossing
the edge of the ribbon of reinforcing material to
define (1) a first section within the reinforced
region and a second section outside the reinforced
region, the first section of the at least one fold line
being wider than the second section of the at least
one fold line, and (2) a transition zone between the
Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
3
first and second sections of the at least one fold
line;
(d) the at least one fold line being formed by (i)
positioning the paperboard between a multi-point
scoring rule having a narrower scoring rule section
outside the reinforced region and a wider scoring
rule section inside the reinforced region and a
counter plate located beneath the scoring rule, the
counter plate including a groove aligned with the
scoring rule, the groove having a narrower groove
section aligned with the narrower scoring rule
section, and a wider groove section aligned with
the wider scoring rule section, the groove gradually
widening from the narrower groove section to the
wider groove section to form the transition zone,
and (ii) impressing the paperboard with the multi-
point scoring rule to form the at least one fold line.
16. A method of making reinforced paperboard carton blanks
comprising the steps of:
(a) advancing a web of paperboard along a path, the
web of paperboard having a width;
(b) progressively applying at least one ribbon of
reinforcing material to the advancing web of
paperboard at a predetermined position to form a
reinforced region for the carton, the ribbon having
a width less than the width of the web of
paperboard and an edge, the position of the ribbon
on the advancing web being subject to a margin of
error;
(c) forming carton blanks from the web and scoring at
least one fold line in each carton blank, the at least
one fold line extending transversely to the
reinforced region and crossing the edge of the
ribbon of reinforcing material to define a fold line
having a first section within the reinforced region
and a second section outside the reinforced region,
the first section of the fold line being wider than
the second section of the fold line; and
Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
4
(d) forming a transition zone between the first and
second sections of the fold line, the transition zone
comprising a widening of the fold line from the
narrower second section of the fold line to the
wider first section of the fold line, the length of the
transition zone being at least as great as the margin
of error, whereby the edge of the ribbon falls
within the transition zone.
OPINION
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 38, and 39
An issue raised in this appeal is whether Campbell, the AAPA,
Seufert, and Knecht render obvious the method of claim 1, including
forming the fold line by
(i) positioning the paperboard between a multi-point scoring
rule having a narrower scoring rule section outside the
reinforced region and a wider scoring rule section inside the
reinforced region and a counter plate located beneath the
scoring rule, the counter plate including a groove aligned with
the scoring rule, the groove having a narrower groove section
aligned with the narrower scoring rule section, and a wider
groove section aligned with the wider scoring rule section, the
groove gradually widening from the narrower groove section to
the wider groove section to form the transition zone, and (ii)
impressing the paperboard with the multi-point scoring rule to
form the at least one fold line.
See App. Br. 7-8; Ans. 5 (relying on Knecht as teaching such a multi-point
scoring rule or platen cooperating with a grooved anvil). Appellant raises
the same issue with respect to claim 11, which includes substantially similar
language. App. Br. 9. Claim 11, in relevant part, recites steps of positioning
a paperboard carton blank between a multi-point scoring rule having a
narrower first section and a wider second section and a counter plate formed
with a groove “having a narrower groove section aligned with the narrower
first section of the scoring rule, a wider groove section aligned with the
Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
5
wider second section of the scoring rule, and a transition region between the
narrower groove section and the wider groove section.”
The depression depicted in the platform means 105 in figure 7 of
Knecht appears to be a temporary depression formed by the impression of
the scoring means 101 into the paper product against the platform means.
Compare fig. 6 (no depression shown) with fig. 7 (showing a depression
after impression into the paper product); see also col. 2, ll. 21-23 (disclosing
a platform means including a top layer of urethane elastomer). Thus,
Appellant’s argument that Knecht does not teach positioning the paperboard
between a scoring rule and a counter plate having a groove as called for in
claims 1 and 11 has merit. See Reply Br. 3-4.
In any event, even setting aside for a moment the fact that the
platform means does not appear to have or be formed with a groove at the
point in time when the paperboard is positioned between the scoring rule and
the platform means (counterplate), it is not apparent, and the Examiner has
not adequately explained, how modifying Campbell to include “a profiled
scoring rule cooperating grooved anvil [sic] as provided by [Knecht] where
transition zones are to be created in the reinforced carton design” as
proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 5) would result in a method satisfying the
limitations of paragraph (d) of claim 1 and paragraph (b) of claim 11. More
particularly, it is not apparent how the proposed combination would result in
a groove in the platform means 105 having a narrower groove section
aligned with the narrower scoring rule section, having a wider groove
section aligned with the wider scoring rule section, and gradually widening
from the narrower groove section to the wider groove section as required in
claim 1 (or having a transition region between the narrower groove section
and the wider groove section as required in claim 11). See App. Br. 8.
Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
6
Knecht does not teach or suggest any variation of the cross-section of
the scoring means 101 depicted in figures 6 and 7 of Knecht throughout its
length. In other words, the narrower scoring bead 110 and the wider
shoulder means 111 run along the entire length of the platen. Further,
Knecht’s figure 7 shows the depression formed in the platform means 105
substantially aligned with the narrower scoring bead 110, not with the wider
shoulder means 111. Even assuming arguendo, that Knecht’s scoring rule
could be set at a depth to produce the narrower score line section in the non-
reinforced region of the paperboard of Campbell and the wider score line
section in the reinforced region, as asserted by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7), the
Examiner does not provide a sound basis to establish that the depression
formed in the platform means 105 during the step of impressing the
paperboard would have a narrower groove section aligned with the narrower
scoring rule section (i.e., the scoring bead 110), would have a wider groove
section aligned with the wider scoring rule section (i.e., the shoulder means
111), and would gradually widen from the narrower groove section to the
wider groove section as required in claim 1 (or would have a transition
region between the narrower groove section and the wider groove section as
required in claim 11).
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection does not establish that
Campbell, the AAPA, Seufert, and Knecht render obvious the subject matter
of claims 1 and 11. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11 and of their dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 38, and
39.
Claims 16-25
Claim 16 is directed to a method comprising, in relevant part, forming
a transition zone having a length with a particular, predefined relationship to
Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
7
the margin of error of the position of the ribbon on the advancing web in the
ribbon-applying step of the method. Specifically, claim 16 requires that the
length of the transition zone be “at least as great as the margin of error.”
This limitation requires more than simply a recognition that the position of
the reinforcing ribbon being applied to an advancing web is subject to a
margin of error. See Reply Br. 4. As correctly pointed out by Appellant,
“[t]he Examiner’s statement that ‘[t]he claimed limitations directed towards
the margins of error do not materially affect the process as claimed’
(Answer, page 8)” is “incorrect.” See Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to
“provide a margin of error for the process as claimed in the modified
invention to Campbell in order to provide quality control” (Ans. 6) does not
address the limitation that the length of the transition zone be “at least as
great as the margin of error.” Additionally, the Examiner’s reliance on the
principle of routine optimization set forth in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456
(CCPA 1955) (see Ans. 5-6), is unavailing to address this limitation. The
Examiner does not point to any evidence that the relationship between the
margin of error and the length of the transition zone has been recognized in
the art as a result-effective variable. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620
(CCPA 1977) (holding a case in which the parameter optimized was not
recognized to be a result-effective variable to be an exception to the general
rule of Aller).
For the above reasons, the Examiner failed to establish that the subject
matter of claim 16, including the step of forming a transition zone with a
length at least as great as the margin of error to which the position of the
ribbon on the advancing web is subject, would have been obvious to a
Appeal 2010-008229
Application 12/020,859
8
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. We
do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 and of its dependent claims 17-25.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-25, 38,
and 39 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh