SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 9, 2020

15686395 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2020)

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.
15/686,395 08/25/2017 MICHELE VITALINI 2016P16122 7291
27350 7590 06/09/2020
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
RUSHIN, LESTER III
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2020 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHELE VITALINI
____________

Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,3951
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
SIEMENS AG. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,395

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relates to the technical field of a conveying
system for items to be conveyed.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites (emphasis added):
1. A conveying system for transporting items to be conveyed
along a main conveying direction, the conveying system
comprising:
a control unit;
a conveying route formed of a plurality of segments;
each of said segments including a plurality of conveyors
arranged substantially in parallel with one another and adjacent
one another in a transverse direction perpendicular to the main
conveying direction, each of said conveyors extending in the
main conveying direction and being configured to transport the
items to be conveyed along the main conveying direction;
said segments being arranged one behind another along
the main conveying direction and said conveyors of adjacent said
segments being laterally offset relative to one another
perpendicularly to the main conveying direction; and
said conveyors being connected to said control unit and
individually driven and individually activated by said control
unit.

REJECTION
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Alleman (US 8,127,915 B2, iss. Mar. 6, 2012).2

2 We note that on page 1 of the Final Action, the Examiner indicates that
claims 1–19 are rejected. On page 2 of the Final Action, the Examiner
indicates that “[c]laims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are rejected,” but makes no
reference to claims 2 and 7. However, on page 3–4 of the Final Action, the
Examiner provides separate paragraphs explaining why claims 2 and 7 are
Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,395

3
ANALYSIS
“[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the
claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of
the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.”
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise
implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor
Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is anticipated by Alleman. (Final
Action 2–3.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that Alleman discloses “each
of said segments including a plurality of conveyors (Fig. 1, conveyors 30, 30
[sic, 32], and 40, 42, 44) arranged substantially in parallel with one another
and adjacent one another in a transverse direction perpendicular to the main
conveying direction (Fig. 1), said conveyors extending in the main
conveying direction.” (Id.)
Appellant argues that “[i]n contrast with the claimed invention, [(1)]
Alleman’s conveyors 30 and 32 are not arranged substantially parallel with
one another and [(2)] they do not extend and transport in the conveying
direction.” (Appeal Br. 6.)
Alleman discloses “[a] system for separating a cluster of
interconnected food products.” (Alleman, Abstract.) Figure 1 of Alleman
appears below.

rejected. In view of this, we treat the omission of claims 2 and 7 from the
list of rejected claims on page 2 of the Final Action as a minor oversight.
Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,395

4

Figure 1 “is a top plan view of an exemplary embodiment of the [Alleman]
invention, i.e., the system for separating a cluster of interconnected food
products, and shows the system along with a series of clusters in various
stages of the separation process.” (Alleman, col. 3, ll. 18–22.)
With regard to Appellant’s first argument, i.e., that conveyors 30
and 32 are not arranged substantially in parallel with one another, we begin
by quoting Alleman’s description of the configuration of the conveyors. “As
shown in FIG. 1, diverging conveyor 28 may include a third conveyor 30
and a fourth conveyor 32, which are configured to operate substantially in
parallel (as opposed to in series) in a coordinated manner . . . .” (Id. at
col. 4, ll. 9–13.) Moreover, we agree with the Examiner:
Applicant did not put in the specification the meaning
applicant is trying to assert in the appeal brief. The meanings or
definitions of the words “substantially parallel” are not set out
Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,395

5
in the specification, nor in any other place else in the application.
Where not set out in the specification or elsewhere in the
application, the examiner must give the words their plain
meaning, MPEP [§] 2111.01 [(I)], and may turn to well-known
resources to determine a meaning of a word or phrase. One such
resource is the Merriam-Webster online dictionary which
defines “substantial[”] as: “being largely but not wholly that
which is specified”. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/substantially?search-dict-box#other-words). It is
clear that the conveyors 30, 32 in Alleman are largely that which
is specified, namely they are substantially parallel.

(Answer 4.) The Examiner also finds that regardless of “[t]he small
divergence of the conveyors [30 and 32] from conveyor 28,” the conveyors
still fall within the “substantially in parallel” language of claim 1. (See id.)
Claim 1 does not require the conveyors to be in parallel. It only
requires the conveyors to be “substantially in parallel.” In view of the
Examiner’s findings and the disclosures in Alleman discussed above
regarding the relative positions of conveyors 30 and 32, Appellant has not
persuasively argued why Alleman does not disclose conveyors 30 and 32
being “substantially in parallel.” (See Answer 4, Alleman, col. 4, ll. 9–13;
see also Claim 1.)
With regard to Appellant’s second argument, i.e., that the conveyors
30 and 32 “do not extend and transport in the conveying direction” (Appeal
Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)), Appellant more specifically argues that “the
second direction of conveyance 36 [in Alleman] is not parallel to the first
direction of conveyance 24 due to the divergence of the third and fourth
conveyor 30, 32” (id. at 7). We are not persuaded of error.
We agree with the Examiner that “Applicant asserts a narrower
interpretation of the words ‘main conveying direction’ than is warranted or
Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,395

6
that the examiner is required to use. The conveying direction of the claims
is from left to right, see Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Left to right describes the main
conveying direction.” (Answer 4.)
The Examiner’s interpretation of the term “main conveying direction”
is further supported by the language of claim 1 itself and Appellant’s
Figures 2, 3, and 4. Specifically, claim 1 recites “said segments being
arranged one behind another along the main conveying direction,” and
Figures 2, 3, and 4 show one segment behind another with the main
conveying direction (6) shown simply as an arrow pointing from left to right.
(See Spec. ¶ 30, Figs. 2–4.) Like Appellant’s conveying system, the
conveying system shown in Alleman’s Figure 1 arranges subsystems 14
and 16, i.e., the segments, one behind another along the main conveying
direction. In other words, subsystem 14 (which includes conveyors 30
and 32) is positioned behind subsystem 16, with the main conveying
direction being from left to right. Additionally, and as shown in Alleman’s
Figure 1, Alleman’s conveying system transports product in the main
conveying direction, i.e., from left to right.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under § 102. Claims 2–19 are not separately argued and
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
is affirmed.

Appeal 2019-006950
Application 15/686,395

7
Specifically:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–19 102(a)(1) Alleman 1–19

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