Ex Parte Demuth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2015

12667117 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LARS DEMUTH and
NICOLAJ STENBERG BALK MOLLER
____________________

Appeal 2012-010337
Application 12/667,117
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lars Demuth and Nicolaj Stenberg Balk Moller (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-010337
Application 12/667,117

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed
subject matter, with emphasis added to key disputed terms.
1. A roller press for grinding particulate material, said
roller press comprising:
two rollers configured to rotate in opposite directions,
where one of said rollers is movably mounted relative to a
second of said rollers and wherein said rollers form a roller gap
therebetween; and
a feed system comprising at least one inclined plate
section for regulating the quantity of particulate material which
is fed along the axial extension of the roller gap, said inclined
plate section, comprising, in the axial direction of said rollers,
at least two substantially parallel plates substantially positioned
in the same plane, said parallel plates being independently
adjustable back and forth relative to the roller gap.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kloeckner Humboldt Deutz, DE 4226182 A1, (published Feb. 10, 1994)
(hereafter DE ’182). Ans. 4.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that DE ’182 teaches “inclined plate section[s]
(31 and 32) comprising, in the axial direction of the rollers at least two
substantially parallel plates substantially positioned in the same plane,” the
plate sections 31, 32 being independently adjustable back and forth relative
to the gap via placing engines 34, 35, respectively. Ans. 4 (citing DE ’182,
Fig. 3).
Appeal 2012-010337
Application 12/667,117

3
Appellants argue that the term “independently adjustable” in claim 1
cannot reasonably be considered to mean anything other than “not
dependent,” and that one skilled in the art would not “reasonably share the
Office’s conclusion that claim 1 can be read broadly to include dependent
positioning of plates as taught by [DE ’182].” Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appellants also argue that any interpretation of the claims finding that
“independently adjustable” encompasses DE ’182 is necessarily
unreasonable and unsustainable. Id. at 13.
Appellants do not explain, however, how each plate of DE ’182
having its own piston (placing engine 34 or 35) fails to make the plates
“independently adjustable,” and, as correctly noted by the Examiner, the
claims do not specifically recite that the position of one plate is independent
of the position of the other plate (see Ans. 6). While adjustment is claimed
to be independent, plate position is not, and we therefore are not persuaded
by this argument.
Appellants also argue that, in the normal course of operation, the
upper and lower plates of DE ’182 “would not be positioned in the same
plane, and in all cases they would not be independently adjustable in the
same plane.” Appeal Br. 15.
The claims do not recite, however, that the plates remain in the same
plane during the normal course of operation, nor do the claims recite that the
plates are adjustable such that they remain in the same plane. Moreover, we
note that the upper and lower plates shown on the right side of Fig. 3 of
DE ’182 are depicted as being “substantially positioned in the same plane”
as recited in the claim. We are therefore not persuaded by this argument.
Appeal 2012-010337
Application 12/667,117

4
Appellants further argue that because the upper and lower plates of
DE ’182 “are rotatable about the hinges that connect them, the upper and
lower plates are not fairly characterized as being adjustable ‘back and forth
relative to the roller gap’” as claimed. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellants have not explained why the plates of DE ’182 being
connected by hinges prevents them from being adjustable “back and forth
relative to the roller gap.” Appellants do not claim any particular plane of
movement relative to the roller gap in which the plates must move back and
forth. All movement of the plates appears to be “relative to the roller gap.”
Lacking a recited restriction on how the plates must move relative to the
gap, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Claims 2 and 3 are directed to a second inclined plate section having
independently adjustable parallel plates. Appellants make the same
arguments set forth above, and we are not persuaded by the arguments
regarding claims 2 and 3 for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, and claim 5 depends from claim 1.
Each of these claims recites parallel plates being “positioned at an acute
angle of 5° to 85° relative to a vertical plane which follows the centerline for
an axial extension of the roller gap.” Regarding claims 4 and 5, Appellants
argue that DE ’182 “does not disclose substantially parallel plates” because
“the upper and lower plates shown in Figure 3 of DE 42 26 182 would
ordinarily be positioned at different angles from one another relative to a
vertical plane which follows the centerline for an axial extension of the
roller gap.” Appeal Br. 17. DE ’182 illustrates the plates being parallel and
in the same plane, as noted supra, and Appellants provide no support for the
contention that the plates would ordinarily be positioned at different angles
Appeal 2012-010337
Application 12/667,117

5
from one another relative to a vertical plane. Further, claims 4 and 5 do not
recite the parallel plates having the same angle relative to the vertical plane.
We therefore are not persuaded by this argument.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–5
as anticipated by DE ’182.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by DE ’182.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

pgc