Ex Parte Cantu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

11791664 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111791,664 04/03/2008 Marco Cantu'
22852 7590 02/08/2016
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
07040.0303 4215
EXAMINER
DUNN, DARRIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCO CANTU' and ENRICO SABB AT ANI
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG and STACY B. MARGOLIES,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 32 through 36, 38 through 50, 52 through 62, 67 and 68. The
Examiner has identified claim 37 as containing allowable subject matter.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method for use in the manufacture
of tires in which a characteristic indicative of the displacement of a member
pressing is monitored and used to generate an alarm if the value exceeds a
threshold value. Abstract.
Claim 32 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
32. A method for controlling a manufacturing process of
components of a tyre for vehicle wheels, wherein at least one
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
elongated element fed by a dispensing member is distributed onto a
forming support by means of at least one pressing member acting on
said at least one elongated element along a pressing direction,
comprising the steps of:
detecting with a predetermined frequency the value of a
characteristic quantity indicative of the position of said at least one
pressing member along said pressing direction;
comparing the detected value of said characteristic quantity
with a threshold value; and
generating a warning signal when the detected value of said
characteristic quantity exceeds said threshold value, including
generating a warning signal in response to a single acceleration of the
pressing member in excess of a threshold value indicating more
movement of the pressing member than desired.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 32 through 36, 38, 39, 41 through
46, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 67, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Martin (US 2004/0055711 Al; published Mar. 25, 2004), Dusserre-
Telmon (US 6,389,887 Bl; issued l'vfay 21, 2002) and Robinson (US 6,889,
553 B2; issued May 10, 2005). Final Office Action 3-25. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 40 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, Robinson and Oldenburg (US
6,428,639 Bl; issued Aug. 6, 2002). Final Office Action 8-9, 16-17.
The Examiner has rejected claims 47 through 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, Robinson and
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2013,
Reply Brief filed December 20, 2013, Final Office Action mailed October 3,
2012 and the Examiner's Answer mailed on October 22, 2013.
2
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
Senbokuya (US 6,616,783 B2; issued Sept. 9, 2003). Final Office Action
11-13.
The Examiner has rejected claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, Robinson and Schoch (US
6,820,026 Bl; issued Nov. 16, 2004). Final Office Action 17-18.
The Examiner has rejected claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, Robinson and Kudo (US
2005/0189061 Al; published Sept. 1, 2005). Final Office Action 18.
The Examiner has rejected claims 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, Robinson and Mayet (US
2001/0020518 Al; published Sept. 13, 2001). Final Office Action 18-19.
The Examiner has rejected claims 61 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, Robinson and Ogawa (US
5,125,188; issued June 30, 1992). Final Office Action 19-20.
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 12 through 18 of the Appeal Brief, and
pages 3 through 13 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 32 is in error. These arguments present us with the
issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martin,
Dusserre-Telmon, and Robinson teaches or suggests detecting with
a predetermined frequency the value of a characteristic quantity
indicative of the position of said at least one pressing member?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martin,
Dusserre-Telmon, and Robinson teaches or suggests generating a
3
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
warning signal in response to a single acceleration of the pressing
member being in excess of a threshold value?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would combine
the teachings of Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, and Robinson?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We disagree with
Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 67 and 68
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32 through 36, 38 through 50, and 52
through 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
First issue:
Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue center around
Dusserre-Telmon' s teachings of monitoring vibratory accelerations to
determine fault. App. Br. 13-14, Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants assert that
Dusserre- Telmon does not teach measuring the positon of a fault. App. Br.
13-14 and Reply Br. 4--5.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments on pages 2 through 7 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that
Dusserre-Telmon' s teaching of monitoring the vibratory accelerations is
detecting a value indicative of position. Answer 3--4. The Examiner
interprets the term indicative as "serving as a sign or indication of
something" and notes that as acceleration is the second derivative of position
4
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
it is indicative of position. Answer 4. The Examiner considers that applying
Dusserre-Telmon's teachings to a machine such as Martin's tire
manufacturing machine teaches and suggests monitoring a value indicative
of the pressing direction. Answer 4-5. We have reviewed the Examiner's
findings and the evidence cited by the Examiner and concur with the
Examiner.
Further, the Examiner explains that the claims do not recite
determining the positon of the fault as argued by Appellants. Answer 7. We
concur.
Appellants' independent claims 32, 50, 67 and 78 recite a limitation
directed to detecting the value of a quantity indicative of a position, not
determining the position as argued by Appellants. Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection based upon Martin, Dusserre-Telmon, and Robinson.
Second issue:
Appellants' arguments directed to the second issue are that Robinson
teaches generating a warning in response to multiple accelerations and
teaches against using one acceleration to trigger a warning as it may be
bogus. App. Br. 14-15. Further, Appellants argue Dusserre-Telmon teaches
away from generating a warning based upon a single acceleration. App. Br.
16.
The Examiner in response to these arguments cites to Robinson as
teaching and suggesting generating a warning based upon acceleration
exceeding a threshold and finds that the use of a single acceleration would
be obvious. Answer 8-9. The Examiner reasons that the use of a single
5
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
acceleration would yield a predictable result and that it is an obvious value
in a range of multiple accelerations. Answer 9.
We disagree with the Examiner, as Appellants point out Robinson
teaches the desirability of using multiple accelerations. Further, we do not
find the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support the finding
that the skilled artisan would modify the combined teachings to use a single
acceleration as claimed. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the
second issue have persuaded us of error. These arguments, however, are not
commensurate in scope with claims 67 and 68, as these claims do not
include a limitation directed to generating a warning in response to a single
acceleration. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the second
issue have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 32
through 36, 38 through 50, and 52 through 62.
r-y-'11 • 1 • imra issue:
Appellants' arguments directed to the third issue are that Martin does
not indicate roller wear and tear as a problem and that as such the
Examiner's rationale for combination is improper. App. Br. 17, Reply Br.
12. Further, Appellants argue Dusserre-Telmon addresses a different issue
than Martin and as such the Examiner is applying hindsight reasoning. App.
Br. 18, Reply Br. 13.
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. The Examiner has
provided a reasoned rationale in response to Appellants' arguments on pages
11 and 12 of the Answer. (See also pages 3 through 5 of the Final Office
Action). We have reviewed the Examiner's rationale and the evidence cited
in support of it and we concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
6
Appeal2014-002792
Application 11/791,664
We additionally note that both Robinson and Dusserre-Telmon teach
monitoring for faults in rotating machinery. Martin teaches use of rotating
machinery to manufacture tires. We find that a skilled artisan would have
recognized that machinery experiences wear and needs to be monitored for
faults/failure. Thus, the combination is nothing more than using known
methods to perform their known function-monitoring machinery for
faults---on a known machine-tire manufacturing-to yield the predictable
result of warning that the machine is wearing/having a fault. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments directed to the third issue have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejection. As the first and third issues are the only
issues raised which apply to claims 67 and 68, and the arguments raised with
respect to these issues have not persuaded us of error, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection with respect to these issues.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 67 and 68 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of 32 through 36, 38 through
50, and 52 through 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7