Ex Parte Barea

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 2009

10508411 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte Tiziano Barea
____________________

Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: October 20, 2009
____________________

Before SALLY GARDNER LANE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Tiziano Barea
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-23, the only
claims on appeal. Barea (Appellant) requests reversal of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.
References Relied on by the Examiner
Benz 5,103,876 Apr. 14, 1992
Barea1 EP 0950742 Oct. 20, 1999
Schmodde 6,079,656 Jun. 27, 2000

The Invention
Appellant teaches a yarn feeding device and method for providing
yarn 2 to a textile machine 3 at a constant tension. (Abstract, Spec. 4:13-
23). Specifically, Appellant’s device and method is designed for use with
textile machines 3 that do not constantly demand or draw in yarn. (Id.). In
particular, Appellant’s device and method seek to: (1) feed yarn 2 at a
constant tension (T) when the textile machine 3 is drawing in yarn and also
(2) provide pull-back (take-up) the yarn 2 at a constant tension (R) when the
textile machine 3 is not drawing in yarn. (Abstract, Spec. 4:13-23, 7:9-17).
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are illustrative of the claimed invention. Claim 1
is reproduced below along with summaries of claims 7 and 11.
1. A device for controlling the feed of a yarn (2) to a textile
machine (3), comprising:
a tension sensor means (16);
a measuring and modifying means (5, 12, 13) ; and
a control and regulator means,

1 Barea, the Appellant on Appeal, is the same Barea listed on EP0950742.
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

3
the device configured to control a feed of a yarn (2) to a textile
machine (3) operating intermittently on said yarn for successive
discrete periods of time interrupted by periods in which the yarn is at
rest and is not used for the production of an article,
said yarn being withdrawn from a bobbin (B) and fed to the
textile machine (3) at an intrinsic speed,
the tension sensor means (16) configured to sense a tension of
the yarn (2),
the measuring and modifying means (5, 12, 13) configured for
measuring and modifying a speed of the yarn being fed to the textile
machine,
said sensor means (16) and said measuring and modifying
means (5, 12, 13) being both connected to the control and regulator
means for said tension and speed parameters,
said control and regulator means continuously measuring values
of both said tension and speed parameters during the feed of the yarn
(2) to the textile machine (3) so as to act on a speed modifying means
part (5) of the measuring and modifying means in order to modify the
tension of the yarn (2) when necessary,
the speed modifying means being a rotary member (5) being
moved in a controlled manner in two opposing directions of rotation
in order to prevent yarn accumulation next to the textile machine
when the textile machine is at rest,
the rotary member (5) being in contact with, or about which
there winds at least for one turn, the yarn (2) directed to the textile
machine,
said member (5) being driven by an actuator controlled by the
control and regulator means, wherein,
the rotary member (5) is movable in a controlled manner in the
two opposing directions of rotation, a first movement in the first
direction of rotation taking place when the yarn (2) is fed to the textile
machine, and a second movement in the second direction of rotation
taking place when the yarn (2) is at rest during each period in which
the textile machine does not use the yarn,
in said second movement the yarn (2) being drawn and wound
onto the rotary member (5) to prevent the yarn accumulation in
correspondence with the textile machine (3), and
by rotary motion of the rotary member (5), the yarn tension is
maintained at constant values (T, R) both during feed to said machine
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

4
and during each period in which the yarn taken up is at rest or
rewound onto the rotary member (5).

(App. Br. 27-29, Claims App’x.).

Claims 7 depends from claim 1, and additionally requires a “take-up
means for the yarn (2) upstream of the speed measurement and modifying
means (5, 12, 13).” (App. Br. 30, Claims App’x.).
Claims 11 is similar to claim 1, but is directed to a method for
controlling the feed of a yarn to a textile machine “with the aim of obtaining
a constant feed tension.” (Id. at 31). Claim 11 additionally requires the
limitation of automatically activating take-up of yarn after sensing a change
in yarn tension, so as to intervene and maintain a constant yarn feed tension.
(Id.).

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner provided the following grounds of rejection for the
claims on appeal:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 10-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Barea (EP 0950742) and Schmodde.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barea (EP 0950742), Schmodde, and Benz.

B. ISSUE
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner incorrectly determined that
the combination of Barea and Schmodde teaches a yarn feeding machine that
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

5
attempts to maintain yarn at a constant tension when the yarn is being fed
into a textile machine, when the yarn is at rest, or the yarn is being rewound
by a rotary member?
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner incorrectly determined that
the combination of Barea and Schmodde teaches a yarn feeding machine that
automatically takes up yarn so as to maintain constant tension?
3. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner incorrectly determined that
the combination of Barea, Schmodde, and Benz teaches a yarn take-up
device upstream of the speed measurement and modifying means?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s Specification
1. Appellant teaches a yarn feeding device and method for providing
yarn 2 at a constant tension for textile machines 3 that do not constantly
demand or draw in yarn. (Abstract, Spec. 4:13-23).
2. Appellant’s device seeks to: (1) feed yarn 2 at a constant tension (T)
when the textile machine 3 is drawing in yarn and also (2) pull-back (take-
up) the yarn 2 at a constant tension (R) when the textile machine 3 is not
drawing in yarn. (Abstract, Spec. 4:13-23, 7:9-17).
3. Appellant’s device senses a measured tension and operates to adjust
the measured tension so that it matches a set tension. (Spec. 8:8-26)
(decreasing the value of the measured tension (M) until it equals the set
tension (T)).
4. Since the actual measured tension of Appellant’s device varies, it does
not provide a “constant” tension at all times.

Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

6
Barea (EP 0950742)
5. Barea teaches a device for feeding yarn to a textile machine 10 at a
constant tension, independent of the velocity of yarn requested by the textile
machine. (Barea, 1:3-9, 15-32).

Schmodde
6. Schmodde is directed towards a yarn supply apparatus for supplying
knitting machines (textile machines) with yarn at an essentially constant
yarn tension, in situations where yarn demand can fluctuate abruptly.
(Schmodde, Abstract, 3:12-16).
7. Schmodde teaches that fluctuations in yarn tension lead to “a
substantial impairment in quality of the knitted goods produced.” (Id. at
1:20-23).
8. Schmodde uses a driven yarn wheel 11 to supply yarn. (Id. at 5:66-
6:2).
9. Schmodde’s yarn wheel 11 is controlled by a closed-loop controller
24 that uses a yarn tension sensor 22 to determine whether the textile
machine is demanding yarn. (Id. at 6:13 to 7:20).
10. Schmodde’s controller 24 operates the yarn wheel 11 to supply yarn
when the textile machine demands yarn and also causes the yarn wheel 11 to
reverse direction and take-up excess yarn, to build up tension in the yarn
when the machine no longer demands yarn. (Id. at 6:64 to 7:28).
11. Schmodde teaches that the yarn is maintained at a substantially
constant tension. (Id. at 7:65 to 8:2).

Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

7
Benz
12. Benz teaches a suction nozzle 14 that is designed to move yarn 2 via
air pressure. Benz, 3:47-56, 4:34-39).
13. Benz’s suction nozzle 14 is designed to feed yarn downstream along a
yarn path 4 to a yarn brake 12 and injector nozzle 11. (Id. at 3:47-56).
14. Benz does not teach that the suction nozzle 14 is used to provide take-
up upstream of a speed modifying means.

D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
An invention is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if it is obvious.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention can provide
a reason for combining elements in the manner claimed. Id. at 420. In
particular, “the combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” Id. at 416.

E. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 10-23 over Barea and
Schmodde. (Ans. 3-9). Claims 1 and 11 are independent and separately
argued. Appellant argues claims 2-6, 10, and 21-23 collectively with
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

8
claim 1. Appellant argues claims 12-20 collectively with claim 11. We first
address claim 1 and claims 2-6, 10, and 21-23.

i. Claims 1, 2-6, 10, and 21-23
The Examiner determined that the combination of Barea and
Schmodde taught all limitations of claim 1. In particular, the Examiner
determined that the combination of Barea and Schmodde taught controlling
the feed of yarn to a textile machine where yarn tension is maintained at
constant values both during feed to the machine and when the yarn is at rest
or taken up from the machine. (Ans. 3-8).
Appellant contends that the combination of Barea and Schmodde does
not teach all limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Appellant contends that
Schmodde does not teach that yarn tension is maintained at constant values
both during feed to the machine and when the yarn is at rest or taken up
from the machine. (App. Br. 10-16, Reply Br. 1-6). In particular, Appellant
contends that Schmodde discloses a tension that can vary within a tolerance
range. (App. Br. 16).

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claimed Phrase Yarn
Tension is Maintained at Constant Values
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for controlling the feed of yarn to a
textile machine wherein “yarn tension is maintained at constant values” both
when yarn is fed to the machine and when yarn is taken up at rest or
rewound. (App. Br. 27-29, Claims App’x.). We give claim terms their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Morris,
127 F.3d at 1056. Appellant’s claim phrase “yarn tension is maintained at
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

9
constant values” allows for an essentially constant tension with some minor
variations when read in a manner consistent with the specification.
Appellant’s specification recites both: (1) feeding yarn 2 at a constant
tension (T) when the textile machine 3 is drawing in yarn and also (2)
pulling-back (taking-up) yarn 2 at a constant tension (R) when the textile
machine 3 is not drawing in yarn. (Abstract, Spec. 4:13-23, 7:9-17).
Appellant’s specification demonstrates that Appellant’s device does not
actually operate at a constant tension at all times. Specifically, Appellant’s
specification teaches sensing a measured tension and adjusting this tension
until it meets a set tension value. (Id. at 8:8-26)(discussing decreasing the
value of the measured tension (M) until it equals the set tension (T)). As the
tension of Appellant’s device is adjusted to match a set value it cannot
logically be said to be constant.
As Appellant’s specification teaches that there is some variation in
tension, we hold that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Appellant’s
claimed phrase “yarn tension is maintained at constant values” allows for
some degree of variation in tension, based on the adjustments needed to
adjust the measured yarn tension to match a set value. See, Vitronics Corp.
v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(“Although words
in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, a
patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner
other than their ordinary meaning”). Accordingly, Appellant’s claimed
phrase “yarn tension is maintained at constant values” encompasses prior art
that provides essentially constant yarn tension with some minor variations in
tension overtime.

Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

10
The Combination of Barea and Schmodde Teach Maintaining
Yarn Tension at Constant Values to the Extent Claimed
Schmodde is directed towards a yarn supply apparatus for supplying
knitting machines (textile machines) with yarn at an essentially constant
yarn tension, in situations where yarn demand speed can fluctuate abruptly.
(Schmodde, Abstract, 3:12-16). Schmodde teaches that fluctuations in yarn
tension cause “a substantial impairment in quality of the knitted goods
produced.” (Id. at 1:20-23).
Schmodde uses a driven yarn wheel 11 to supply yarn. (Id. at 5:66-
6:2). The yarn wheel 11 is controlled by a closed-loop controller 24. (Id.
at 6:13 to 7:20). Schmodde’s controller 24 operates the yarn wheel 11 to
supply yarn when the textile machine demands yarn and also causes the yarn
wheel 11 to reverse direction and take-up excess yarn to build up tension in
the yarn when the machine no longer demands yarn. (Id. at 6:64 to 7:28).
Schmodde teaches that the controller 24 is designed to control the yarn
wheel 11 in such a manner that yarn tension is kept within a “tolerance
range” that may be “quite narrow.” (Id.). Schmodde teaches the tolerance
range allows for yarn tension to be “substantially constant” during the
process of supplying or taking up yarn. (Id. at 7:28 to 8:2, Fig. 3 Graph I).
Schmodde’s teaching of maintaining a yarn tension within a tolerance
range that provides essentially or substantially constant tension is analogous
to Appellant’s adjusting of a measured yarn tension to match a set tension.
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Appellant’s
claims in light of Appellant’s specification allows for the yarn tension to
have some minor variations. Since Schmodde discloses yarn tensions that
are essentially or substantially constant, Appellant has not demonstrated how
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

11
its claims define over what is taught by the combination of Barea and
Schmodde. Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner
incorrectly determined that the combination of Barea and Schmodde teaches
maintaining yarn at a constant tension when the yarn is being fed into a
textile machine and also when the yarn is at rest or being rewound by a
rotary member.

ii. Claims 11-20
As discussed above, Appellant argues claims 12-20 collectively with
claim 11. Claim 11 is directed to a method for controlling the feed of yarn
“with the aim of obtaining a constant feed tension” and further recites the
limitation of automatically activating take-up of yarn after sensing a change
in yarn tension, so as to intervene and maintain a constant yarn feed tension.
(App. Br. 31, Claims App’x.).
The Examiner determined that the combination of Barea and
Schmodde taught all limitations of claims 11-20. (Ans. 5-8). Specifically,
the Examiner determined that the combination of Barea and Schmodde
taught automatically taking-up yarn each time it is not being withdrawn by
the textile machine, so as to maintain a constant yarn tension. (Id. at 6-7).
The Examiner also determined that the combination taught sensing a change
in tension and then intervening to maintain a constant feed tension. (Id.).
Appellant contends that the combination of Barea and Schmodde does
not teach all the limitations of claim 11. In particular, Appellant contends
that Schmodde fails to teach that the yarn take-up is automatically activated
in response to a change in sensed yarn tension. (App. Br. 18). Appellant
also contends that Schmodde fails to teach that the automatic take-up
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

12
intervenes to maintain a constant feed tension. (Id. at 18-19). Appellant
further contends that the Examiner has not addressed the above limitations.
(Reply Br. 4-5).
In the Answer, the Examiner specifically determined that the above
disputed limitations were taught by Schmodde as part of the combination of
Barea and Schmodde. (Ans. 5-8). As recognized by the Examiner,
Schmodde teaches controlling a yarn wheel 11 via a closed-loop controller
24. (Schmodde, 6:13-36, 7:15-36). Schmodde’s closed-loop controller 24
uses a yarn tension sensor 22 and operates the yarn wheel 11 in response to
the tension sensor’s 22 measurements to ensure that the yarn tension is
maintained within a tension tolerance range that is substantially constant.
(Id. at 7:15 to 8:2). Schmodde further teaches that the yarn wheel 11 is
designed to reverse to maintain a requisite tension when the yarn is no
longer being fed to the textile machine. (Id. at 7:20-36).
We hold that Schmodde’s teaching of a controller that reverses a yarn
wheel in response to a tension drop, so as to maintain a substantially
constant tension amounts to automatically activating a take-up of yarn after
sensing a change in yarn tension when yarn is not being withdrawn by the
textile machine. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in determining that claims 11-20 are obvious.

iii. Claims 7-9
Claims 7-9 depend from claim 1 and additionally require a yarn “take-
up means” upstream of the speed measurement and modifying means. (App.
Br. 30, Claims App’x.). The Examiner determined that the combination of
Barea and Schmodde did not teach a yarn take-up means upstream of the
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

13
speed measurement and modifying means. (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner,
however, determined that Benz 14 teaches a yarn take-up means upstream of
a measurement and a modifying means being a suction means. (Id.).
Appellant contends that the combination of Barea, Schmodde and
Benz does not teach a take-up means upstream of a speed measurement and
modifying means. (App. Br. 23-25). Specifically, Appellant contends that
“Benz actually teaches a thread feeding means” rather than a “take-up
means.” (Id. at 24-25).
Benz teaches a suction nozzle 14 that is designed to move yarn 2 via
air pressure. (Benz, 3:47-56, 4:34-39). Benz however does not teach that
the suction nozzle 14 is capable of taking up yarn. Rather, suction nozzle 14
is designed to feed yarn downstream along a yarn path 4 to a yarn brake 12
and injector nozzle 11. (Id. at 3:47-56). Accordingly, we hold that
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner incorrectly determined that
the combination of Barea, Schmodde, and Benz teaches a take-up means
upstream of the speed measurement and modifying means.

F. CONCLUSION
1. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner incorrectly determined
that the combination of Barea and Schmodde teaches a yarn feeding machine
that attempts to maintain yarn at a constant tension when the yarn is being
fed into a textile machine or when the yarn is at rest or being rewound by a
rotary member.
2. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner incorrectly determined
that the combination of Barea and Schmodde teaches a yarn feeding machine
that automatically takes up yarn so as to maintain constant tension.
Appeal 2009-004611
Application 10/508,411

14
3. Appellant has shown that the Examiner incorrectly determined that
the combination of Barea, Schmodde, and Benz teaches a yarn take-up
device upstream of the speed measurement and modifying means.

G. ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-6 and 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barea (EP 0950742) and Schmodde are affirmed.
The rejections of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Barea (EP 0950742), Schmodde, and Benz are reversed.
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-IN-PART

Ak

Young & Thompson
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314