Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2022

2020006670 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2022)

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. 16/033,350 07/12/2018 Robert Dennis Seay GP30748USNP 48237/9106 1003 140303 7590 02/08/2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough-Georgia Pacific IP Department One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2300 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202 EXAMINER LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2022 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): gplawpatents@gapac.com ip@nelsonmullins.com koch_PAIR@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT DENNIS SEAY ____________ Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20, which constitutes all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 2 II. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Specification relates generally “to paper, sheet and box manufacturing systems and, more particularly, to reel editors for pre-print paper, sheet and box manufacturing systems.” Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification discloses “[p]aper, sheet, and/or box manufacturing systems” that “include print systems that print one or more images . . . on the product” by passing “a roll of web product . . . through a printing press” to “receive one or more images.” Id. ¶ 3. The Specification also discloses that a “reel map or control plan for the roll of web product may help define the desired specifications/images for the finished product,” but that “there may be waste within the roll” that should be removed “at various points throughout the manufacturing process” to allow “more efficient manufacturing of the finished product [to] occur.” Id. ¶ 4. The disclosed techniques aim to check images “for defects” and edit “the roll . . . such as to remove excess waste on the roll and/or poor images on the roll.” Spec. ¶ 6. The disclosed techniques also update the “reel map . . . to account for the removed or changed portion of the roll of web product.” Id. Independent claim 1 follows: 1. A system for editing a roll of printed web product, the system comprising: a first winding station comprising a winding device that is configured to wind and unwind the roll of printed web product, wherein the first winding station is configured to receive the roll of printed web product; a cutting station configured to enable one or more portions of the roll of printed web product to be removed; Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 3 a second winding station that is configured to receive a tail end of the roll of printed web product and enable winding and unwinding of the roll of printed web product; a reel editor module configured to: receive a control plan associated with the roll of printed web product, wherein each roll of printed web product is associated with a roll-specific control plan, wherein the control plan comprises roll data that includes data corresponding to one or more printed orders on the roll of printed web product, wherein the roll data comprises waste data that includes one or more locations of waste sections on the roll of printed web product, wherein each of the waste sections corresponds to at least one of waste on the roll of printed web product or unsatisfactory images that are printed on the roll of printed web product, wherein the roll data comprises a number of structure outlines associated with an order section on the roll of printed web product; control the first winding device to unwind the roll of printed web product to position a location of a waste section of the roll of printed web product at the cutting station for removal of the waste section to form an edited roll of printed web product; control at least one of the first winding device of the first winding station or a second winding device of the second winding station to wind the edited roll of printed web product after removal of the waste section; and update the control plan associated with the roll of printed web product by updating the roll data based on the removed waste sections to form an updated control plan associated with the edited roll of printed web product, wherein the reel editor module is configured to update the control plan by updating, in an instance in which a portion of an order section was removed, the roll data with an updated remaining number of structure outlines associated with the order section on the edited roll of printed web product such that the updated control plan includes an indication of the updated remaining number of structure outlines associated with the order section. Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 4 III. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal follows: Name Reference Date Gunther et al. (“Gunther”) US 6,122,658 Sept. 5, 2000 Otsuki US 2002/0197091 A1 Dec. 26, 2002 Howe US 2006/0090319 A1 May 4, 2006 Lang et al. (“Lang”) US 2018/0345619 A1 Dec. 6, 2018 Cooper GB 2,102,769 A Feb. 9, 1983 IV. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Howe, Lang, and Gunther. Final Act. 5. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Howe, Lang, Gunther, and Cooper. Final Act. 24. Claims 14 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Howe, Lang, and Otsuki. Final Act. 26. Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Howe, Lang, Otsuki, and Cooper. Final Act. 37. V. OPINION Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20 Claim 1 recites “updat[ing] the control plan associated with the roll of printed web product by updating the roll data based on the removed waste sections to form an updated control plan associated with the edited roll of printed web product.” Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 5 The Examiner finds that Howe’s solution to discarded roll maps and synchronization to determine the length of web material involves “generat[ing]” or “modify[ing]” “a control plan/or map.” Final Act. 9 (citing Howe, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 6, 40-41). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Howe teaches “finding the correct length of the roll and restor[ing] the usefulness of the roll defect map” by “finding defects” and “creating a roll defect map by generating and using a reel/roll map, treating/removing the defect and ending the process.” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner relies on Lang’s “adaptive reel map being updated to form a corrected reel map, such as may occur when a section of a printed sheet from a roll has a detected print error on it” to teach updating a control plan based on remove waste sections. Final Act. 10 (citing Lang ¶¶ 117, 178-179). Specifically, the Examiner finds that, “[w]hile Howe does not explicitly teach updating a roll map after defects are removed, the second reference Lang teaches updating a roll map after defects are removed.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues that modifying Howe with Lang as proposed would “render[] Howe unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” and “change the principle operation of” Howe. Appeal Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Howe teaches solving the problem of a defective roll map by making a new separate defect map . . . instead of updating the reel map after defects are removed.” Id. at 6. Appellant argues that modifying Howe with the “teaching of Lang (i.e. keeping the roll map and updating it)” would “make the defect map taught in Howe unnecessary” and “would change the principle operation of the defect map taught in” Howe. Id. at 6-7; see Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant also argues that “Howe does not update that defect map after either creating separate rolls . . . or after a portion of the web is Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 6 removed with a defect” because it “instead re-synchronizes using the indicator markings on the remaining web,” and that “the benefits obtained with synchronization” may be disregarded by modifying Howe. Id. at 7. These arguments do not undermine the Examiner’s showing. Appellant does not explain persuasively how employing Lang’s updated reel map teachings in Howe’s system changes the principle of operation of Howe, renders Howe unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or creates an inoperative device. “If references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . such references teach away from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.” McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting In re Sponnoble, 56 CCPA 823, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (1969) and citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Appellant concedes that “Howe may not explicitly say that such a map shouldn’t be updated.” Reply Br. 3. Although Appellant argues that “Howe has both (i) already solved the problem (and there is no motivation to go further), Appellant also concedes that Howe merely “(ii) solves the problem differently.” Reply Br. 3. As the Examiner finds, Howe does not “teach against updating a roll map” or “disregarding the original map,” even if Howe’s system creates a new map. See Ans. 4-5 (citing Howe, Fig. 9). The Examiner also persuasively finds that the combined teachings of Lang and Howe would have beneficially prevented waste of material by implementing Lang’s updated control map. See Final Act. 10-12. According to the Examiner, although “Howe does not explicitly teach updating a roll map after defects are removed . . . Lang teaches updating a roll map after defects are Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 7 removed.” Ans. 5. As the Examiner explains, by updating the reel map as Lang teaches, “[t]he faulty section of the printed sheet may be discarded downstream,” and “the reel map can maintain track of the images actually present on the reel as it passes through the sheet processing apparatus.” Id. at 10 (quoting Lang ¶ 117). In other words, using Lang’s method of updating a control plan aids processing and prevents waste in a system such as Howe’s. Lang does not change Howe’s principle of operation or render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, because Howe’s system does not preclude using information from the original map, whether by including that information in a new map or updating a map as Lang suggests. See Ans. 4- 5; Howe, Fig. 9; Lang ¶ 117. In summary, Appellant does not persuasively explain how the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Howe and Lang teaches or suggests “updat[ing] the control plan associated with the roll of printed web product by updating the roll data based on the removed waste sections to form an updated control plan associated with the edited roll of printed web product” as recited in claim 1. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of claim 1. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of independent claims 14 and 19, or dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20, separately from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8- 9, 11. Accordingly, claims 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20 fall with claim 1. Claim 2 Claim 2 recites Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 8 wherein the reel editor module is further configured to control at least one of the first winding device or the second winding device to unwind the edited roll of printed web product at the second winding station and rewind the edited roll of printed web product at the first winding station to form an updated roll of printed web product that is rewound with a leading tail end on the outside circumference of the roll of printed web product. The Examiner relies on Cooper’s web being unwound from one mandrel of a rotatable turret and rewound on the other mandrel of the same turret to teach the claimed unwinding the edited roll at the second winding station and rewinding the edited roll at the first winding station. Final Act. 24-25 (citing Cooper, code (57)). In the cited Abstract, Cooper states that “[d]uring treatment of one side of a web, the web is unwound from one mandrel (eg4) of a rotatable turret and rewound on another mandrel (eg5) of the same turret.” Cooper, code (57). Appellant argues that Cooper’s system “rotat[es] a turret (where the roll holders are held) such that a first treated roll (with leading edge at center) is now repositioned to a first position to run through the machine again to treat the other side” and does not teach the claimed “unwind the edited roll of printed web product at the second winding station and rewind the edited roll of printed web product at the first winding station.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4. This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing. Appellant does not explain why Cooper’s teaching that a “web is unwound from one mandrel (eg4) of a rotatable turret” does not teach “unwind[ing] the edited roll of printed web product at the second winding station” as claimed. Appellant also does not explain why Cooper’s teaching that the Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 9 “web is . . . rewound on another mandrel (eg5) of the same turret” does not teach “rewind[ing] the edited roll of printed web product at the first winding station” as claimed. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of claim 2. Claim 11 Claim 11 recites “wherein the reel editor module is configured to update the control plan by generating a control plan for each of the one or more narrower rolls [from slitting the roll of printed web product].” The Examiner finds that Lang’s adaptive reel map updated to form a corrected reel map, and the control map showing that the “web is to be cut in smaller rolls by cutting lines,” with examples including that “pieces are generated and updated to be fit in the remaining web that comprises two or more longitudinal cuts to product rolls” teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 21-22 (citing Lang ¶¶ 117, 178-179, Figs. 4, 5, 8, 11-14). In paragraphs 147 and 148, describing cited Figure 4, Lang discloses that “the width of the web can be widened” and “jobs with different waste margins [can] be accommodated.” Lang ¶¶ 147-148. Appellant argues that Howe teaches “markings [that] will be useful on the split rolls with the already created single defect map - instead of creating a new control plan for each (now split) roll.” Appeal Br. 11. This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing. The Examiner relies on Lang, not Howe, to teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 21-22. Appellant argues that “the claim requires generating a new control plan for a roll once a longitudinal direction cut occurs,” but Lang only Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 10 teaches “updating an already generated control plan after a lateral cut occurs.” Reply Br. 5. However, Appellant raises this issue, that Lang only teaches lateral cuts but that the claim requires longitudinal cuts, for the first time in the Reply Brief. Appellant’s argument is therefore untimely, and thus waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019). Nonetheless, Appellant’s argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing because Appellant does not explain why Lang’s corrected reel maps for jobs with varying widths does not teach a control plan for each of narrower rolls. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of claim 11. VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-6, 8- 13 103 Howe, Lang, Gunther 1, 3-6, 8- 13 2 103 Howe, Lang, Gunther, Cooper 2 14, 17-19 103 Howe, Lang, Otsuki 14, 17-19 15, 20 103 Howe, Lang, Otsuki, Cooper 15, 20 Overall Outcome 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 Appeal 2020-006670 Application 16/033,350 11 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED