Ex Parte DeGrootDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201512943974 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL DEGROOT ____________ Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael DeGroot (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 122, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “thermoplastic, toothed endless belts driven by pulleys.” Spec. 1, para. 2. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 2 1. A direct drive conveyor comprising: an endless belt; at least one drive pulley wherein one of the belt and the at least one drive pulley has teeth at a given pitch and the other of the belt and the at least one drive pulley has recesses at a different pitch such that the pulley pitch is greater than the belt pitch, wherein the recesses are adapted to receive the teeth as the belt wraps around the at least one drive pulley to an exit point; and means to minimize friction between the belt and the at least one drive pulley wherein only one tooth or recess on the belt at a time is driven by a corresponding drive recess or tooth on the at least one drive pulley so that the belt can slip relative to the at least one pulley after the driven tooth or recess on the belt exits its corresponding drive recess or tooth on the at least one drive pulley at the exit point. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Greaves US 3,184,037 May 18, 1965 Chalk US 3,334,524 Aug. 8, 1967 Langenbacher US 4,995,506 Feb. 26, 1991 Wallbaum US 5,755,315 May 26, 1998 Gibbs US 6,315,105 B1 Nov. 13, 2001 Fredenhagen G 94 16 294.8 U1 Jan. 19, 1995 Osako JP 2001-056043 A Feb. 27, 2001 Mol WO 03/076311 A1 Sept. 18, 2003 THE REJECTIONS Appellant seeks review of the following Examiner’s rejections. 1. Claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol and Osako. Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 3 2. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol, Osako, and Chalk.1 3. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol, Osako, and Greaves.2 4. Claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol and Fredenhagen. 5. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol, Fredenhagen, and Wallbaum. 6. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol, Fredenhagen, and Gibbs. 7. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol, Fredenhagen, and Langenbacher. 8. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mol and Fredenhagen.3 1 The Examiner states the rejection of claim 3 as being “over [Mol] as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of [Chalk].” Final Act. 4. We understand the phrase “as applied to claims 1 and 2 above” to refer to the proposed modification of Mol with the teachings of Osako. 2 The Examiner states the rejection of claim 9 as being “over [Mol] as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of [Greaves].” Final Act. 5. We understand the phrase “as applied to claims 1 and 6 above” to refer to the proposed modification of Mol with the teachings of Osako. 3 Claim 16 depends from claim 10 and recites that the direct drive conveyor “further compris[es] an idler spaced from the drive pulley.” App. Br. 14. The Examiner states that “[c]laim 16 recites the genus of the same limitation of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner rejected claim 6, finding that Mol discloses “an idler spaced from the at least one drive pulley (Figure 1).” Final Act. 4. As such, we understand the Examiner to have rejected dependent claim 16 as unpatentable over Mol and Fredenhagen for the same reasons as set forth in Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 4 9. Claims 17–224 “under the same rationale”5 as claims 1 and 10, 11, 2, 3, 4, and 4, respectively. ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1–8 as unpatentable over Mol and Osako Appellant offers arguments pertaining to all the claims subject to this rejection (claims 1–8) and offers additional arguments applicable to the limitation present in dependent claim 5. App. Br. 3–6. For the arguments pertaining to all of the claims, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). We separately consider the additional argument pertaining to claim 5. Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the combined teachings of Mol and Osako fails to disclose “wherein only one tooth or recess on the belt at a time is driven by a corresponding drive recess or tooth on the at least one drive pulley so that the belt can slip relative to the at least one pulley after the driven tooth or recess on the belt exits its corresponding drive recess or tooth on the at least one drive pulley at the exit point” (claim 1). App. Br. 4.6 the rejections of claims 10 and 6. 4 Independent Claim 17 is directed to “[a] method of driving an endless belt in a conveyor,” and includes the step of “enabling the belt to move at an average speed less than the average speed of the at least one drive pulley.” App. Br. 14. Claims 1822 depend from claim 17. Id. 5 Final Act. 9–10. 6 Appellant does not appear to contest the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 3) that Osako discloses the claimed means to minimize friction or the Examiner’s determination (id.) that it would have been obvious to modify the belt of Mol to include Osako’s friction reducing material “in order to Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 5 Appellant’s Specification describes that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that because thermoplastic belts stretch under load, “the tooth pitch of the belt must be less than the pitch of the drive pulley at less than maximum elongation of the belt.” Spec. 2, para. 6.7 Appellant’s Specification further describes that due to the necessary pitch difference between the belt and the pulley, only the belt tooth about to exit the pulley will be driven by a pulley sheave at any given moment. Id. at 2, para. 7.8 Appellant’s Specification describes that as the exiting tooth disengages from the drive pulley, the belt stops for a brief moment until the following sheave re-engages a new exit tooth. Id. at 2–3, para. 8. Appellant’s Specification describes that “some slip between the belt and the pulley is what enables a direct drive application to work” and that “[f]riction between the belt and the pulley will retard slippage and may cause the trailing tooth to miss the pulley sheave altogether.” Id. at 3, para. 10. Appellant’s Specification describes that the invention provides means to minimize friction between the belt and the drive pulley, such as “a friction reducing coating [on] the belt or the drive pulley or both.” Id. at 4, para. 14; id. at 6, para. 31. We understand from the description provided in Appellant’s Specification that the pitch difference between the belt and the pulley results in only one tooth or recess on the belt at a time being driven by a corresponding drive recess or tooth on reduce noise, improve wear resistance of the belt and pulley and also provide smooth operation of the belt.” App. Br. 3–6. 7 The Specification also describes that “the pulley pitch must equal the pitch of the belt at maximum elongation, give or take a fraction of a percent.” Spec. 2, para. 6. 8 The Specification is silent as to how many belt teeth will be driven by a pulley sheave at maximum elongation of the belt. Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 6 the drive pulley. We further understand that because only one tooth is driven at a time, the belt must slip relative to the pulley after the driven tooth or recess on the belt exits its corresponding drive recess or tooth on the drive pulley at the exit point to ensure that the trailing tooth does not miss the corresponding sheave. Mol discloses an endless belt having teeth extending therefrom at a given belt pitch, and “adapted to engage a sprocket having sheaves spaced from each other at a given sprocket pitch,” where “the belt pitch is less than the sprocket pitch so that the sprocket can drive the endless belt when only one tooth engages a sheave, and continue to drive the endless belt as it stretches under load by multiple teeth engaging multiple sheaves.” Mol, p. 2, ll. 17–24. In particular, Mol discloses belt 100 having belt pitch 112 less than sprocket pitch 116 of sprocket 102, such that belt 100 under no load will effectively be driven by drive wall 128 of a single sheave 104 acting against sidewall 126 of a single tooth 106 received within the sheave. Id. at 5, ll. 17–20; Fig. 2. Mol discloses that belt 100 under load P tends to stretch so that belt pitch 112 more nearly equals sprocket pitch 116, such that more teeth 106 are engaged by corresponding sheaves. Id. at 5, ll. 20–23; Fig. 3. Mol discloses that “the endless belt is stretchable within a range of 0–3% of its total length.” Id. at 2, ll. 23–24; id. at 3, ll. 1–2 (“Preferably, the belt is stretchable within a range of 0–3% under loads of 0–18 Kg per cm of width.”). Based on the disclosures of Mol discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Mol discloses a direct drive conveyor in which the sheaves on the pulley are disposed at a pitch greater than the teeth on the belt, at least under conditions of no load, such that only one tooth on the belt Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 7 at a time is driven by a corresponding sheave on the drive pulley.9 Because Mol discloses that under no load the pulley drives the belt via engagement with only one tooth, slippage of the belt relative to the pulley after the driven tooth on the belt exits its corresponding sheave on the pulley at the exit point must necessarily occur for this conveyor system to function. In other words, if the friction between the belt and pulley of Mol were so great as to prevent slippage of the belt relative to the pulley, then the trailing tooth would miss its corresponding sheave altogether and the pulley would not be able to drive the belt under a no load condition. Mol’s silence as to the need for this slippage to occur does not mean that no slippage occurs. In fact, as described in Appellant’s Specification, “some slip between the belt and the pulley is what enables a direct drive application to work.” Spec. 3, para. 10. It is reasonable for the Examiner to understand Mol’s disclosure that the direct drive conveyor operates under no load conditions to mean that some slippage occurs. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 3) that Mol discloses a conveyor wherein only one tooth or recess on the belt at a time is driven by a corresponding drive recess or tooth on the at least one drive pulley so that the belt can slip relative to the at least one pulley after the driven tooth or recess on the belt exits its corresponding drive recess or tooth on the at least one drive pulley at the exit point. We affirm the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4 and 6–8 fall with claim 1. 9 Appellant’s claim 1 does not mention load conditions of the belt. As such, the claim is broad enough to encompass a direct drive conveyor in which, under no load conditions, only one tooth on the belt at a time is driven by a corresponding drive recess on the pulley. Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 8 Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the minimizing means comprises minimal surface contact between the belt and the drive pulley.” App. Br. 12. Appellant’s Specification describes: As well, the pulley will preferably have minimal surfaces contacting the belt anywhere but on the belt tooth surfaces. For example, the supporting structure such as the surface 136 between adjacent sheaves can be recessed from the perimeter of the pulley as shown in Fig. 3b. It can also have a narrower neck 138 to reduce surface contact with the belt (See Fig. 3c). Spec. 6, para. 31. We construe claim 5 to be limited to the structures described in the Specification, i.e., recessed surfaces between adjacent sheaves on the pulley or narrower neck surfaces between adjacent sheaves on the pulley, and equivalents thereof for creating minimal surface contact between the belt and the drive pulley. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[T]he ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six. Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.”). The Examiner points to Figures 1 and 2 of Mol as disclosing minimal surface contact between the belt and drive pulley. Final Act. 4. We do not find by a preponderance of the evidence that Mol discloses either of the structures described in Appellant’s Specification, or equivalents thereof, for creating minimal surface contact between the belt and the drive pulley. It is impossible to discern from either Figure 1 or 2 of Mol the structure of the surface portion between adjacent sheaves on the pulley. As such, we reverse the rejection of claim 5. Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 9 Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites “wherein the friction reducing coating is polytetrafluoroethylene.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner cited to Chalk as disclosing a friction reducing coating as claimed. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that Chalk does not cure the alleged deficiencies in the disclosure of Mol as it pertains to the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 6. Finding no deficiencies in the disclosure of Mol as it relates to the language of claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 3. Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and further recites “wherein the idler is a stationary disk that bears against the belt.” App. Br. 13. The Specification describes, in reference to Figure 6, that the idler 320 can “comprise a stationary disk 322 or arm that the belt simply slides against.” Spec. 8, para. 38. The Examiner cited to Greaves as disclosing a “[r]ecripocable conveyor with stationary disk that bears against the belt (44 and is attached with fixed journal bearing block, Figure 4).” Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that this finding as to the disclosure of Greaves is in error because roller 44 of Greaves is rotatable and not stationary, that it rotates with the movement of the belt and therefore does not bear against the belt as claimed. App. Br. 7. We understand the claim term “stationary disk,” when read in light of the Specification, to refer to an idler disk that does not rotate, but rather is fixed relative to the moving belt such that the belt slides against the disk. Greaves discloses that roller 44 “is rotatably supported at the rear end of carriage 22 about an axis fixed on the carriage and parallel to the axis of Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 10 roller 41. . . .” Greaves, col. 4, ll. 42–44. Although the axis on which roller 44 is supported is fixed relative to carriage 22, roller 44 is rotatable about this axis. Thus, roller 44 is not a stationary disk, and thus we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Greaves’s disclosure of roller 44 is a disclosure of an idler comprising a stationary disk that bears against a belt, as called for in claim 9. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 9. Claims 10–12 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10–12 because Fredenhagen discloses a flat belt conveyor that uses snub pulleys to add friction and tension to the system, and the Examiner has failed to articulate adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used such snub rollers in the direct drive conveyor of Mol. App. Br. 8–9; id. at 9 (“The fact that the structure of the snub rollers in Fredenhagen merely looks like the structure of the conveyor in the application does not mean that it is the same thing so as to render the invention obvious.”). The Examiner found that Fredenhagen “discloses [a] transfer device comprising[] means to retain the belt against the pulley at the driven tooth for a distance more than the length of one pulley pitch (36, 38, Figures 1 and 2[)].” Final Act. 6. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious “to modify the conveyor system of [Mol] to include the means to retain the belt against the pulley at the driven tooth for a distance more than the length of one pulley pitch as taught by Fredenhagen in order to prevent the belt slipped [sic] from the pulley.” Id. Fredenhagen discloses a conveyor system having belt straps (18) and (20) guided over driven motor drums (28) and (30) and tension rollers (32) Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 11 and (34) and snub pulleys (36), (38), (40), and (42) around or along which the belt straps (18) and (20) are guided. Fredenhagen, p. 3, last paragraph. Fredenhagen does not disclose by a preponderance of the evidence using snub pulleys to retain a belt against a pulley at a driven tooth because it is not clear from the disclosure in Fredenhagen that there are teeth on either the belt straps or the driven motor drums of Fredenhagen. Thus, the Examiner has failed to articulate adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used such snub rollers in the direct drive conveyor of Mol. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 10–12. Claims 13–16 The rejections of claims 13–16 are based on the same combination of Mol and Fredenhagen that we find deficient in the rejection of claims 10–12. Accordingly, for the same reasons provided supra, we reverse the rejections of claims 13–16. Claims 1722 The Examiner rejected independent method claim 17 based on the same rationale as claims 1 and 10. With regard to the rejection of claim 10, we find the Examiner’s rationale lacking in adequate articulation. Accordingly, we do not sustain a rejection of claim 17 based on the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 10. With regard to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner found claim 1 unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Mol and Osako. The Examiner’s findings and articulation of the rejection did not address explicitly the “causing,” “enabling,” and “providing” steps of method claim 17. [T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in Appeal 2013-000589 Application 12/943,974 12 “notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 11) that in this case, simply stating that independent method claim 17 “recites the genus of the same limitations of claims 1 and 10 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale” (Final Act. 9) is not sufficiently informative to establish a prima face case of obviousness. The rejections of dependent claims 18–22 suffer from the same shortcomings. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 17–22. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4 and 6–8 is AFFIRMED. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5 and 9–22 is REVERSED. 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-IN-PART llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation