Ex Parte Csida et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10423547 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JASON GENE CSIDA, LLOYD CARL HIETPAS, MICHAEL
LEE LOHOFF, CHARLES ROBERT TOMSOVIC, and
BRIAN ROBERT VOGT
____________

Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: March 31, 2008
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jason Gene Csida et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 32-36. Claims 9-31
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

2
and 37-42 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION

Appellants’ invention is directed towards a process and apparatus for
folding a web material suitable for making prefastened garments such as
disposable absorbent garments (Spec. 1, ll. 1-5). The apparatus includes a
transport system (alignment conveyors 256, 258) defining a machine
direction 108 and a machine center line, a pair of air knives 290, 310 located
on opposite sides of the machine center line at fixed locations in the machine
direction 108 (Spec. 32, ll. 13; Spec. 34, ll. 9-15; Spec. 36, l. 16; and figs. 3
and 14). Each air knife 290, 310 includes a nozzle 294, 314 and a curved
Coanda surface 296, 316 (Spec. 34, ll. 32-35; Spec. 36, ll. 35-36; and figs.
13-14). Each Coanda surface 296, 316 defines a curvature from the nozzle
to a terminal edge 301, 322 (Spec. 35, ll. 10-11; Spec. 37, ll. 11-12; and figs.
13-14). During operation, a jet of compressed air that is expelled from
nozzle 294 forms a pressure differential across the web material which
causes the web material to attach to and follow the curved Coanda surface as
the material travels in the web direction (Spec. 35, ll. 20-32 and fig. 13).
Claims 1 and 32 are illustrative of the claimed invention and read as
follows:
1. A method of folding a material, comprising:
transporting a material comprising a panel in a machine
direction;
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

3
transporting the panel in operative proximity to an air
knife, the air knife comprising a nozzle and a curved Coanda
surface; and
expelling air from the nozzle such that the panel is folded
over the curved Coanda surface as the material is transported in
the machine direction.
32. An apparatus for folding a pair of garment side panels,
comprising:
a transport system defining a machine direction and a
machine center line and;
a pair of air knives located on opposite sides of the
machine center line at fixed locations in the machine direction,
each air knife comprising a nozzle and a curved Coanda
surface, each air knife aligned generally parallel to the machine
center line such that a nozzle flow direction is generally
perpendicular to the machine direction.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Tsien US 3,773,315 Nov. 20, 1973
Vogt US 6,113,717 Sep. 5, 2000

The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 5-8, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tsien.
Claims 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tsien in view of Vogt.
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

4
Claims 3-4 and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsien.

The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed August 14, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments
in the Appeal Brief (filed May 22, 2006). A Reply Brief has not been filed.

OPINION
Claims 1, 3-8, and 32-36
The Examiner explains where the elements of claims 1 and 32 are
disclosed in Tsien. The Examiner found that Tsien discloses a process and
apparatus for folding a material 101A and 101B in a machine direction using
a pair of air knives 4A, 4B to expel air and fold the material over the curved
surfaces of trays 3A and 3B (Ans. 3).
The crux of Appellants’ argument is that the curved surface of either
tray 3A or tray 3B does not constitute a “curved Coanda surface” as required
in each of claims 1-8 and 32-36 (Br. 6). The Examiner takes the position
that each of the curved surfaces formed by trays 3A and 3B constitutes a
“coanda curved surface” (Ans. 7).
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection all words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
Furthermore, when construing claim terminology in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

5
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
We agree with the Examiner that the surfaces formed by trays 3A and
3B are “curved surfaces.” However, for the reasons that follow, we do not
find that Tsien’s air-knives (nozzles) 4A, 4B and surfaces formed by trays
3A and 3B constitute an “air knife comprising a nozzle and a curved Coanda
surface” as understood by a person ordinarily skilled in the art.
Our analysis begins with an explanation of the “Coanda effect,” which
is also known as the “wall attachment effect.” The “Coanda effect” is a
phenomenon that occurs when
…a free jet emerging from a nozzle will tend to follow a nearby
curved or inclined surface and will ”attach” itself to or come in
contact with and flow along the surface if the curvature or angle
of inclination is not too sharp. This attachment tendency lies in
the fact that the jet stream entrains or picks up nearby fluid
molecules. When the supply of these molecules is limited by
an adjacent surface, a partial vacuum develops between the jet
and the surface, and if the pressure on the other side of the jet
remains constant, the partial vacuum which is a lower pressure
region will force the jet to bend and attach itself to the wall.”

(U.S. Patent No. 4,756,230, issued Jul. 12, 1988, col. 2, ll. 5-20).
As shown in Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 2,052,869, issued Sep. 1,
1936 to Henri Coanda, in the “Coanda effect,” the fluid stream flowing from
nozzle 2 attaches itself to the surface 4 and changes its flow direction in
accordance with the contour of surface 4 rather than maintaining its original
upward direction as it emerges from the nozzle.
Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 2,052,869, issued Sep. 1, 1936, is
reproduced below:

Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

6

Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 2,052,869, issued Sep. 1, 1936, depicts the
“Coanda effect.”

The Examiner improperly interprets the limitation in claims 1 and 32
of an “air knife comprising a nozzle and a curved Coanda surface” as
simply requiring a nozzle and a “curved surface,” without regard to how
they are positioned relative to each another. We find a nozzle and “Coanda
surface” combination to be a nozzle-surface combination that requires the
nozzle and the surface to be arranged such as to permit the fluid emerging
from the nozzle to attach itself to the surface and hence achieve the “Coanda
effect.”
Allowing a patentee to argue that physical structures and
characteristics specifically described in a claim are
merely superfluous would render the scope of the patent
ambiguous, leaving examiners and the public to guess
about which claim language the drafter deems necessary
to his claimed invention and which language is merely
superfluous, nonlimiting elaboration. For that reason,
claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to
all terms in the claim. [Citations omitted.]
Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

7
Contrary to the Examiner’s position, we do not find that the
combination of air-knife 4A or 4B with curved surfaces of tray 3A or tray
3B of Tsien constitutes an “air knife comprising a nozzle and a curved
Coanda surface,” as recited in claims 1 and 32. In Figure 2 of Tsien the jet
emerging from air-knife (nozzle) 4A is perpendicular to the tray 3A. If the
curved surfaces of Tsien were Coanda surfaces, as the Examiner proposes,
then the fluid expelled from nozzle 4A would “attach” to the outer radius of
the curved surfaces and then diverge from its perpendicular direction by
flowing along the inner radius of the curved surfaces as shown by the flow
arrows below in the modified Figure 2 of Tsien.
A Modified Figure 2 of Tsien is reproduced below:

Material 101A
Nozzle 4A
Tray 3A
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

8
The Modified Figure 2 of Tsien depicts the “Coanda effect” if the
curved surfaces of trays 3A or 3B were “curved Coanda surfaces.”
However, as Figure 2 of Tsien clearly shows, the jet emerging from
nozzle 4A does not flow in such a manner. Contrary to the “Coanda effect”
the emerging jet continues its perpendicular direction so as to directly push
material 101A downwardly through slot 90 to create a first fold 102 (col. 2
ll. 56-60 and, figs. 2 and 3a). We finally note that when a “curved Coanda
surface” is present, the fluid flows along the “curved Coanda surface.” In
Tsien, the impinging jet does not flow along the curved surfaces of trays 3A
and 3B, but rather impinges onto the web material 101A and 101B. In
conclusion, we find that that the air-knife (nozzle) 4A or 4B and curved
surfaces of tray 3A or tray 3B of Tsien do not constitute an “air knife
comprising a nozzle and a curved Coanda surface,” as called for in claims 1,
5-8, 32, and 33. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 32, and 33 as
anticipated by Tsien is reversed.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, and 34-36 as unpatentable over Tsien is
also reversed, as it is grounded in part on the Examiner’s flawed
determination that Tsien discloses an “air knife comprising a nozzle and a
curved Coanda surface,” as called for in claims 1 and 32, from which claims
3, 4, and 34-36 depend.

Claim 2
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner relies on Vogt merely for the use of
an item (panel) including a reclosable fastener (Ans. 4). The Examiner does
not rely on Vogt for any teaching that would overcome the above-noted
Appeal 2008-0036
Application 10/423,547

9
deficiency of the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, as
anticipated by Tsien. Hence, the rejection of claim 2 likewise cannot be
sustained.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 32-36 is
reversed.

REVERSED

vsh

KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
CATHERINE E. WOLF
401 NORTH LAKE STREET
NEENAH, WI 54956