10509981 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011)

Ex Parte Backlund

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 24, 2011

10509981 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011)

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. 10/509,981 04/22/2005 Hans-Olof Backlund GROTH 3.3-036 2938 530 7590 01/24/2011 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK 600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST WESTFIELD, NJ 07090 EXAMINER GRAYBILL, DAVID E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2894 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte HANS-OLOF BACKLUND ____________________ Appeal 2009-011620 Application 10/509,981 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-011620 Application 10/509,981 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 22, 24-32, and 34-42. Claims 1-21, 23, and 33 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 22 under appeal reads as follows: 22. A method of measuring stress forces in refiners including a pair of refining discs juxtaposed with each other and forming a refining gap for refining material therebetween, said pair of refining discs including at least one refining surface including a plurality of bars for refining said material within said refining gap, said at least one refining surface including a measuring surface comprising a predetermined portion of said at least one refining surface including at least a portion of at least a pair of said plurality of bars, said method comprising resiliently mounting said measuring surface in said at least one refining surface and simultaneously measuring both the magnitude and direction of stress forces in the plane of said measuring surface, wherein said simultaneously measuring comprises measuring said stress forces in a first direction by means of a first force sensor and measuring said stress forces in a second direction by means of a second force sensor, said first direction being angularly displaced with respect to said second direction, and determining said magnitude and direction of said stress forces by measuring said stress forces in said first and second directions. Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 22, 24-32, and 34-42 as under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bankes (US 6,840,470 B2). Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that Bankes fails to measure stress forces in two different directions in a plane of a measuring surface as recited in claim 22, or in a plane of a stress measuring member as recited in claim 30 (App. Appeal 2009-011620 Application 10/509,981 3 Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 1-4). Appellant asserts that Bankes does not (i) determine stress forces in the plane of the measuring surface by measuring stress forces in two different directions, or (ii) arrange sensor elements 26 at different locations in a plane parallel to refining face 16 (App. Br. 8). 2. Appellant contends that refining surface of Bankes does not include at least a portion of at least a pair of bars, as recited in claims 22 and 30 (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4-5). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 22, 24-32, and 34-42 as being anticipated because the Bankes references fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. With regard to Appellant’s first contention, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 6, and 12) that Bankes discloses measuring stress forces in two different directions in a plane of a measuring surface as recited in claim 22, or in a plane of a stress measuring member as recited in claim 30. Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 7) that Bankes’ normal force being measured is not in the plane of the measuring surface is not persuasive, since Appeal 2009-011620 Application 10/509,981 4 claims 22 and 30 merely recite the measurement of stress forces in two directions, and do not use the terms “shear force” or “normal force.” Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 8) that the “‘stress forces’” recited in claim 22 are not “normal forces” is not commensurate in scope with the claim language, and is therefore unconvincing. Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 2-4) that Bankes does not measure shear forces in two directions or dimensions are also unconvincing since these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the language of claims 22 and 30. Similarly, Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 8) that Bankes does not disclose sensor elements 26 at different locations in a plane parallel to the refining face 16 are unpersuasive, because claims 22 and 30 call for measuring stress forces in different directions in the plane of the measuring surface (or stress measuring member), and do not recite arranging multiple sensor elements “at different locations in a plane parallel to the refining face” as argued. Furthermore, Bankes describes multiple sensor elements 26 in the embodiments shown in Figures 1, 2, 7, 10, and 12 for measuring stress forces, including shear forces in directions parallel to the measuring or refining surface. With regard to Appellant’s second contention, we do not agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 4) that Bankes’ measuring surface does not include at least a portion of at least a pair of bars. The Examiner is correct (Ans. 13) that a portion of a pair of bars, or a plurality of a pair of bars, could be one bar or a portion of one bar. Claims 22 and 30 do not recite that a refining surface portion include a pair of refining bars, just “at least a portion of at least a pair of said plurality of bars” (see claims 22 and 30 (emphasis added)). Appeal 2009-011620 Application 10/509,981 5 CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 22, 24-32, and 34- 42 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Bankes. (2) Claims 22, 24-32, and 34-42 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 24-32, and 34-42 based on Bankes 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK 600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST WESTFIELD, NJ 07090