Ex Parte DeFigueiredo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 6, 2012

11583415 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CARLOS L. DEFIGUEIREDO and
THOMAS P. NASH
____________________

Appeal 2010-002814
Application 11/583,415
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002814
Application 11/583,415
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Carlos L. DeFigueiredo and Thomas P. Nash (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. An accumulator apparatus for an inserter system, the
apparatus comprising:
a transport chassis comprising a horizontal deck and a
series of pusher fingers arranged on a transport belt to push
accumulations of sheets along a length of the horizontal deck;
an insert feeder positioned above the horizontal deck of
the transport chassis for providing inserts to be included in
accumulations of sheets on the transport chassis;
a set of driven accumulator nip rollers immediately
downstream of the insert feeder, the set of driven accumulator
nip rollers positioned in line with the transport chassis to
receive accumulations of sheets transported on the horizontal
deck, and positioned within one insert length downstream of the
insert feeder to receive and transport inserts fed from the insert
feeder;
a recessed accumulation deck immediately downstream
of the accumulator nip rollers, the recessed accumulation deck
positioned below a level of the transport chassis horizontal
deck, the recessed deck receiving sheets from both the transport
chassis and the insert feeder via the accumulator nips, and
whereby a first sheet will rest in the recessed accumulation deck
and a subsequent second sheet will be placed on top of the first
sheet; and
a controller coupled to the transport chassis and the insert
feeder, whereby the controller is configured to control operation
of the accumulator apparatus whereby one or more insert sheets
are released by the insert feeder to be driven by the accumulator
Appeal 2010-002814
Application 11/583,415
3
nip rollers onto the recessed accumulator deck prior to arrival of
one or more accumulation sheets pushed by the pusher fingers
on the horizontal deck at the accumulator roller nips.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Davidson
Edwards
Wright ‘029
US 2,427,839
US 5,273,265
US 5,876,029
Sep. 23, 1947
Dec. 28, 1993
Mar. 2, 1999
Wright ‘438 US 2005/0017438 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edwards and Wright ‘029.
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Edwards, Wright ‘029, and Wright ‘438.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Edwards, Wright ‘029, and Davidson.
OPINION
All of the Examiner’s rejections are grounded in part on a proposed
modification of Edwards to provide accumulation nip rollers immediately
downstream of the insert feeder (rollers 14 and 16) to receive accumulations
of sheets and sheets fed from the insert feeder, “for the purpose of driving
the inserted sheet to its predetermined position as well as to control the
overall insertion device so collations are properly assembled (as shown in
column 1, lines 30-57).”1 Ans. 4.
In contesting the rejections, Appellants argue that “there is no
suggestion or motivation to make the proposed combination” (Br. 10), and

1 We understand the Examiner to have been referring to column 1, lines 30-
57 of Wright ‘029.
Appeal 2010-002814
Application 11/583,415
4
that even if combined as proposed, the modified device would place the
insert on top of the collation, not on the bottom (Br. 13).
As best illustrated in figures 5 and 6 of Wright ‘029, the insert 202 fed
from the insert feeder (feed roller assembly 122) is fed through the nip 139
formed between idler roller 138 and drive roller 140 of the main deck drive
assembly 106 along with the accumulation of sheets 200, thereby nesting the
insert with the accumulation at the nip 139. The nip 139 preferably is
spaced from the nip 127 of the feed roller assembly 122 by a distance less
than the length of an insert, so that the leading edge of the insert enters the
nip 139 of the main deck drive assembly 106 before the tail edge portion of
the insert is expelled from nip 127. Col. 5, ll. 51-55, col. 6, ll. 44-47. The
advantage of this arrangement is that it provides a continuous driving force
upon an insert from the time the insert is conveyed through and expelled
from the insert feeder until the time the insert is nested with an accumulation
of sheets on the main deck. Col. 6, ll. 53-58.
Thus, to gain any advantage from the incorporation of a set of driven
accumulation nip rollers into Edwards’ device immediately downstream of
the insert feeder (rollers 14 and 16), the rollers 14 and 16 and pushers 30
would be synchronized so that the insert document 18 and the collation 17
arrive at the nip of the driven accumulation nip rollers at the same time, as
taught by Wright ‘029, to nest the insert with the collation while a driving
force is still provided upon the insert. Consequently, the insert would be
placed on top of the collation as asserted by Appellants. Thus, the Edwards
device, if modified to include a set of driven accumulation nip rollers in
Edwards’ device immediately downstream of the insert feeder (rollers 14
and 16) in a manner to achieve any apparent advantage from the driven
accumulation nip rollers, would not satisfy the limitation in claim 1 of a
Appeal 2010-002814
Application 11/583,415
5
controller configured to control operation of the apparatus “whereby one or
more insert sheets are released by the insert feeder to be driven by the
accumulator nip rollers onto the recessed accumulator deck prior to arrival
of one or more accumulation sheets pushed by the pusher fingers on the
horizontal deck at the accumulator roller nips” or the step in claim 7 of
receiving the sheets and inserts “whereby a first set of one or more inserts
will rest in the recessed accumulation deck and a subsequent second set of
one or more primary sheets will be placed on top of the first set.”
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case that Edwards and Wright ‘029 render
obvious the subject matter of claims 1 and 7 and claims 3-5, which depend
from claim 1. We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7 as
unpatentable over Edwards and Wright ‘029.
The Examiner’s application of the teachings of Wright ‘438 and
Davidson in rejecting dependent claims 2, 6, 8, and 9 does not cure the
deficiency in the combination of Edwards and Wright ‘029. Thus, we
reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 8 as unpatentable over Edwards, Wright
‘029, and Wright ‘438 and the rejection of claims 6 and 9 as unpatentable
over Edwards, Wright ‘029, and Davidson.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh