Ex Parte Burkhard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2014

11961684 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte ALAN WAYNE BURKHARD
____________________

Appeal 2012-009114
Application 11/961,684
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
8, 10, 12–17, and 23–28. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an electromagnetic separation for shakers.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vibratory separator comprising:
a skid comprising at least one side skid magnet disposed
on a skid spring pad and located on an upward facing surface of
Appeal 2012-009114
Application 11/961,684
2
the skid, and at least one laterally offset skid magnet located on
the upward facing surface of the skid; and
a basket comprising at least one side basket magnet
disposed on the basket and located on a downward facing
surface of the basket, and at least one laterally offset basket
magnet located on a downward facing surface of the basket,
wherein the at least one side skid magnet and the at least
one side basket magnet are arranged to magnetically interact,
and
wherein the at least one laterally offset skid magnet and
the at least one laterally offset basket magnet are arranged to
magnetically interact.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Delamater
Bely
Tsutsumi
Scott
US 2,077,678
US 3,495,710
US 5,100,539
US 7,571,817 B2
Apr. 20, 1937
Feb. 17, 1970
Mar. 31, 1992
Aug. 11, 2009

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 23–28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bely, Delamater, Tsutsumi.
Ans. 4.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bely, Delamater, Tsutsumi and Scott. Ans. 6.

OPINION
The sole issue raised in this appeal relates to the alleged absence in
the prior art of “at least one laterally offset skid magnet located on the
upward facing surface of the skid and at least one corresponding laterally
Appeal 2012-009114
Application 11/961,684
3
offset basket magnet located on the downward facing surface of the
basket, . . .[of] independent claims 1 and 23.” App. Br. 7–8. Insofar as
these features are concerned, Appellant cites as exemplary either
electromagnet 440 or 441 as “one side skid magnet” and the other of
electromagnets 440 or 441 as the “laterally offset skid magnet.” App. Br. 6;
Fig. 4. These magnets “magnetically interact” with a respective “side basket
magnet” (either 430 or 431) and “laterally offset basket magnet” (the other
of 430 or 431). Id.
The Examiner relies on Bely, and not Delameter or Tsutsumi (contra
App. Br. 12–13), as disclosing these features. Ans. 9. As the Examiner
correctly points out, any of the electromagnets 14–21 is reasonably
interpreted as a “side skid magnet” and at least its respective diametrically
opposed magnet is reasonably interpreted as “laterally offset” from that
magnet. For example, magnet 14, as viewed in Figure 2, is on the left “side”
of the supporting skid 12 and magnet 18 is “laterally offset” therefrom, on
the opposite side of a line defined by the center points of magnets 6 and 10.
Ans. 5. Magnets 3 are similarly situated with respect to the working
chamber or “basket.” Ans. 5 (citing Bely, col. 2, l. 59, et seq.) “[L]aterally”
simply means to the side of.1 We have not been apprised of any evidence in
Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere to demonstrate that a circular
structure, such as Bely’s, lacks a lateral direction. Thus, we cannot see any
basis for Appellant’s assertion that “[b]cause all electromagnets of Bely are

1 “Lateral” 2011, in THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE (2011), retrieved from
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/lateral/0?sear
chId=1bcd2ad7-5615-11e4-b74a-12c1d36507ee&result=0 (last viewed Oct.
16, 2014).
Appeal 2012-009114
Application 11/961,684
4
disposed along the side of the vibrating device, Bely cannot be said to teach
laterally offset skid and basket magnets, as claimed.” See App. Br. 12.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls