Ex Parte Cramer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2003

09294354 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2003)

1The status of the claims can be discerned from Papers No. 14 and 23, as confirmed by the index
of claims on the inside of the file wrapper.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DIRK CRAMER
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
____________
HEARD: July, 16, 2003
____________
Before ABRAMS, STAAB, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-
12, 18-22, 28-33 and 39-42. Claims 43-46 have been allowed and claims 3-6, 13-17,
23-27 and 34-38 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter.1
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a roll winding device. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Schönmeier et al. (Schönmeier) 5,478,026 Dec. 26, 1995
Raudaskoski et al. (Raudaskoski) 5,492,287 Feb. 20, 1996
Krüger et al. (Krüger) 5,848,760 Dec. 15, 1998
The standing rejections before us are:
(1) Claims 1, 2, 7-12, 18-22, 28-33 and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raudaskoski in view of Krüger.
(2) Claims 7, 18 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Raudaskoski in view of Krüger and Schönmeier.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 23) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Supplemental Brief (Paper No. 19) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 24) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to improvements in roll winding machinery in
which first and second column devices that support the rolls are connected to each
other in the lateral direction by a cross bar, and the cross bar comprises the sealing box
that is disposed underneath the winding bed, which is furnished with pressurized air to
generate an air cushion under the rolls. According to the appellant, the use of the
sealing box as a strengthening cross bar simplifies the structure while providing
sufficiently high mechanical stability to absorb the stresses generated during the
operation of the winding machine. The invention is recited in claim 1 in the following
manner:
1. A roll winding device, comprising a winding bed and at
least one support device comprising at least one carrying roll
having a first end and a second end and a longitudinal axis
disposed in a lateral direction with respect to a direction of
travel of a web, in a machine frame comprising a column
device at each of the two ends of the carrying roll, said
column devices being connected to each other in the lateral
direction by at least one cross bar, at least one cross bar
comprising a sealing box that is disposed underneath the
winding bed.
Claims 1, 2, 7-12, 18-22, 28-33 and 39-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 4
2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
3Krüger has been applied for its teaching of utilizing a reel cutter in combination with a roll winding
machine, a requirement that is present only in claims 7, 18 and 28.
§ 103(a) as being obvious2 in view of the combined teachings of Raudaskoski and
Krüger. Looking first to independent claim 1, although Krüger has been cited along with
Raudaskoski, as we understand the rejection of this claim it is the examiner’s view that
Raudaskoski discloses all of the subject matter claimed, except Raudaskoski “may not
disclose a column device, although the appellant’s broad language suggests that the
phrase ‘column device’ should be read broadly,” but in any event it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to provide either a column device or a
foundation to be connected by the cross member comprising a sealing box, since either
results in a rigid machine frame” (Answer, pages 3 and 4).3 Among the appellant’s
arguments is that Raudaskoski fails to disclose or suggest a crossbar comprising a
sealing box and connecting together column devices on each end of the rolls. We
agree with the appellant on this point.
In the embodiment shown in Figures 3 and 4, to which the examiner has
referred, Raudaskoski discloses a roll winding device comprising a pair of carrying rolls
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 5
4 The common applicable definition of “connected” is “linked together.” See, for example,
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 240.
11 and 12 which support a winding roll 13. The winding rolls are rotatable on shafts
supported by bearing housings 22, which are positioned on “foundation[s] 17" (column
4, lines 6 and 7). A concrete cutter well “generally made of concrete, steel, or
equivalent material” (column 3, lines 51 and 52) contains a sealing box (sealing
chamber) 150, which is located beneath the carrying rolls, and air under pressure is
supplied thereto in order to at least partially support the winding roll. The sealing box is
supported by a pair of support beams 23, and may be movable laterally with respect to
the carrying rolls (column 4, line 40 et seq.). The support beams and the foundations
appear to rest on the ground. There is no explicit disclosure of any interconnection
between the support beams, the foundations, the bearing housings, and the sealing
box, and no such interconnection is apparent from the drawings.
Contrary to the position apparently taken by the examiner, it is our opinion that
even if one considers, arguendo, that foundation 17 and bearing housing 22
constitute the claimed “column device at each of the two ends of the carrying roll,”
Raudaskoski fails to disclose or teach the requirement in claim 1 that the column
devices are “connected to each other in the lateral direction by at least one cross bar,”4
much less that the cross bar comprises “a sealing box.” We view the examiner’s
conflicting conclusion to be grounded in speculation, in that there is no evidence in the
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 6
reference to support it. This deficiency in Raudaskoski is not overcome by considering
the teachings of Krüger. Thus, the combined teachings of the references applied
against claim 1 fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in the claim, and the rejection of claim 1 and the claims
dependent therefrom cannot be sustained.
We reach the same result, for the same reason, with regard to independent
claims 8, 19 and 29 and the appended dependent claims, all of which require that
supporting structures be connected together by means comprising a sealing box.
Claims 7, 18 and 28 further stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Raudaskoski in view of Krüger and Schönmeier. These claims add a reel cutter to the
roll winding device and method recited in the independent claims. Although in the other
rejection the examiner cited Krüger against these same claims for its teaching of
utilizing a reel cutter, he now adds Schönmeier for the same purpose. Be that as it
may, Schönmeier also fails to alleviate the shortcoming in Raudaskoski pointed out
above, and we therefore will not sustain this rejection of claims 7, 18 and 28.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 7
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-0595
Application No. 09/294,354
Page 8
GREENLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191