Ex Parte Domijan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2007

10274797 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered 1
today is not binding precedent of the Board. 2
3
4
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 5
_____________ 6
7
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 8
AND INTERFERENCES 9
_____________ 10
11
Ex parte JOSEPH J. DOMIJAN 12
_____________ 13
14
Appeal No. 2007-0513 15
Application No. 10/274,797 16
Technology Center 3700 17
______________ 18
19
Decided: August 15, 2007 20
_______________ 21
22
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and DAVID B. 23
WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges. 24
25
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. 26
27
28
DECISION ON APPEAL 29
30
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14 and 17-21, 31
which are all of the pending claims. 32
33
THE INVENTION 34
The Appellant claims an apparatus for double seaming an end unit to a can 35
body. Claim 1 is illustrative: 36
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

2

1. An apparatus for double seaming an end unit to a can body, 1
comprising: 2
a double seaming chuck; 3
a first drive mechanism operably connected to said double 4
seaming chuck for rotating said double seaming chuck; 5
a double seaming roll; 6
means for selectively moving said double seaming roll toward 7
said double seaming chuck to perform a double seaming operation; and 8
a second drive mechanism for rotating said double seaming roll 9
in a direction so as to reduce relative rotational speed between said double 10
seaming roll and a workpiece when the double seaming roll comes into 11
contact with the workpiece during the double seaming operation, said second 12
drive mechanism being constructed and arranged to be normally disengaged, 13
and to become engaged as the double seaming roll is moved toward the 14
double seaming chuck to perform a double seaming operation. 15
16
17
THE REFERENCES 18
19
Sedwick US 1,695,210 Dec. 11, 1928 20
Currie US 3,025,814 Mar. 20, 1962 21
22
THE REJECTIONS 23
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 under 24
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sedwick, and claims 6, 13, 14 and 17-21 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sedwick in view of Currie. 26
27
OPINION 28
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as to claims 1, 3, 4 and 7, 29
and reversed as to claims 5, 8 and 10-12. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is 30
reversed. 31
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

3

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 1
Sedwick discloses “a seaming head provided with a chuck and a body 2
portion rotatable relative thereto, which body portion carries the seaming rolls for 3
rolling a can end and flange on a can body into a double seam” (Sedwick 1:3-8). 4
The chuck (2) has an annular projection (13) and is rotated by a spindle (3) to 5
which the chuck is attached (Sedwick 1:88-91; 2:53-54). A steel plate (19) is 6
clamped between the chuck and a shoulder (20) on the spindle, and rotates with the 7
spindle (Sedwick 2:44-47). A gap between the steel plate and the chuck’s annular 8
projection is sized such that an outer edge portion (16) of the seaming rolls wedges 9
between the steel plate and the annular projection when the outer edge portion is 10
brought into contact with the chuck by use of a cam (Sedwick: 2:10-20, 52-58, 84-11
88). The gripping contact of the steel plate with the seaming rolls causes rotation 12
of the seaming rolls (Sedwick 2: 58-61). The surface speed imparted to the 13
seaming rolls by the steel plate is varied by inward shift of the point of contact 14
between the steel plate and the seaming rolls as the double seam’s outer diameter 15
decreases due to compression of the seam during the double seaming operation 16
(Sedwick 2:92-99; figs. 2, 3). That surface speed variation prevents slippage 17
between the seaming rolls and the metal parts which they contact (Sedwick 2:99-18
104). 19
The Examiner relies upon Sedwick’s spring plate 19 as corresponding to the 20
Appellant’s second drive mechanism for rotating the double seaming roll to reduce 21
relative rotational speed between the double seaming roll and a workpiece 22
(Answer 3, 5). 23
The Appellant argues (Br. 8): 24
Sedwick does not have a second drive mechanism that is normally 25
disengaged from the rotational drive means, and that becomes engaged as 26
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

4

the double seaming roll is moved toward the double seaming chuck prior to 1
performing the double seaming operation . … Plate 19 remains 2
continuously engaged with the annular projection 13 of the chuck 2 both 3
before and after the double seaming roll is moved toward the double 4
seaming chuck. 5
6
The Appellant’s argument is well taken with respect to claim 8 which 7
requires that the second drive mechanism is normally disengaged from the double 8
seaming chuck’s rotational drive means. The Examiner argues that “the operation 9
of second drive means 16, 19 of Sedwick in just such a manner is clearly detailed 10
on page 2, lines 52 to 64 and 84 to 92, of Sedwick” (Answer 5). Those portions of 11
Sedwick indicate that the steel plate normally is disengaged from the seaming rolls, 12
but they do not indicate that the steel plate normally is disengaged from the 13
chuck’s rotational drive mechanism. Sedwick’s chuck and steel plate both are 14
attached to a rotatable spindle (Sedwick 1:91-92; 2:45-47). 15
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of 16
anticipation of the invention claimed in the Appellant’s claim 8 or its dependent 17
claims 10-12. 18
The Appellant’s claim 1, however, does not require that the second drive 19
mechanism is normally disengaged from the chuck’s rotational drive mechanism. 20
Claim 1 merely requires that the second drive mechanism is normally disengaged, 21
and becomes engaged as the double seaming roll is moved toward the double 22
seaming chuck to perform a double seaming operation. Sedwick’s spring plate is 23
normally disengaged from the double seaming rolls, and becomes engaged with the 24
double seaming rolls as they are moved toward the chuck to perform a double 25
seaming operation (Sedwick 2:10-26, 84-88). 26
The Appellant argues that Sedwick does not disclose that the spring plate 27
reduces the relative rotational speed between the double seaming roll and a 28
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

5

workpiece when the double seaming roll comes into contact with the workpiece 1
during the double seaming operation (Br. 8-9). The Appellant argues that 2
Sedwick’s double seaming roll surface speed variation is merely a natural 3
byproduct of the operation of Sedwick’s device, and that Sedwick has no interest 4
in reducing the relative rotational speed between the double seaming rolls and the 5
workpiece (Br. 9). Sedwick’s disclosure that the seaming rolls are driven at the 6
proper speed by the steel plate to avoid slippage between the seaming rolls and the 7
metal parts (Sedwick 2:52-61, 99-104) is a disclosure that the relative rotational 8
speed between the double seaming rolls and the metal workpiece is reduced as the 9
double seaming rolls are brought into contact with the workpiece, as required by 10
the Appellant’s claim 1. 11
The Appellant argues that Sedwick does not disclose the limitations in 12
claims 3, 4, and 7 that depend from claim 1 (Br. 10-11). Sedwick’s steel plate 13
engages the double seaming chuck by being clamped thereto and rotates the double 14
seaming rolls (Sedwick 2:43-45, 58-61) as required by the Appellant’s claim 3. 15
That clamping engagement is frictional as required by the Appellant’s claim 4. As 16
for claim 7, Sedwick’s avoidance of slippage between the double seaming rolls and 17
the metal parts (Sedwick 2:99-104) substantially eliminates relative rotational 18
speed between the double seaming roll and the workpiece during the double 19
seaming operation. 20
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of 21
claims 1, 3, 4 and 7. 22
The Appellant’s claim 5 requires that the second drive mechanism comprises 23
a first frictional drive element mounted to rotate with the double seaming chuck 24
and a second frictional drive element mounted to rotate with the double seaming 25
roll. The Examiner argues that “the elements 16, 19 of the Sedwick second drive 26
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

6

mechanism are clearly engaged by friction due to the yieldable nature of the spring 1
plate 19” (Answer 3). The Appellant’s claim 1, from which claim 5 indirectly 2
depends, requires that the second drive mechanism is normally disengaged. If, as 3
argued by the Examiner, the second drive mechanism includes Sedwick’s seaming 4
roll projection 16, the second drive mechanism cannot be normally disengaged 5
from the seaming roll. The Examiner has not established that there is anything else 6
from which seaming roll projection 16 and steel plate 19 are normally disengaged 7
but become engaged as the double seaming roll is moved toward the double 8
seaming chuck to perform a double seaming operation as required by the 9
Appellant’s claim 1. 10
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of 11
anticipation of the invention claimed in the Appellant’s claim 5. 12
13
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 14
The Appellant’s independent claim 17 requires a second drive mechanism 15
comprising a first elastomeric frictional drive element mounted to rotate with a 16
double seaming chuck, and a second elastomeric frictional drive element mounted 17
to rotate with a double seaming roll, the first and second drive elements being 18
oriented and configured to engage each other as the double seaming roll is moved 19
toward the double seaming chuck prior to a double seaming operation. The 20
Appellant’s independent claim 21 requires a second drive mechanism comprising a 21
plurality of o-rings. 22
Currie discloses a rotatable seaming chuck that prevents skidding of a 23
beaded can end relative to the seaming chuck during a seaming operation 24
(Currie 1:11-17). The skidding is prevented by a resilient friction ring (68), 25
preferably a commercially available o-ring of the type that easily can be replaced at 26
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

7

low cost, that is disposed in a recess (60) in the chuck (50) such that a portion of 1
the friction ring projects out of the recess and presses against an annular bead (18) 2
on the can end (A) (Currie 1:58-61; 3:29-65; fig. 4). 3
The Examiner argues (Answer 4): 4
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at 5
the time the invention was made to employ O-rings as the second drive 6
mechanism elements in Sedwick, following the suggestion of Currie et al, 7
rather than spring plate 19 and projection 16, in order to simplify the 8
construction of the seaming head in a low cost manner. To provide the O-9
rings on either the chuck or seaming roll in Sedwick, or on both as required 10
by Claims 17 and 21, would be an obvious expedient for one having 11
ordinary mechanical skill to determine by routine experimentation in order 12
to optimize the driving friction for any specific seaming operation. 13
14
The Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would 15
have considered Currie’s o-ring, which prevents slippage between a chuck and a 16
can lid (Currie 1:10-17), to be effective as a replacement for Sedwick’s spring 17
plate 19 and double seaming roll’s annular projection (16) that prevent slippage 18
between metal parts and a seaming roll. The Examiner argues that such a 19
replacement would optimize the driving friction, but the Examiner has provided no 20
supporting evidence. The record, therefore, indicates that the Examiner used 21
impermissible hindsight in rejecting the Appellant’s claims over the combined 22
disclosures of Sedwick and Currie. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 23
F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 24
851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 25
1960). 26
Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797

8

DECISION 1
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over 2
Sedwick is affirmed as to claims 1, 3, 4 and 7, and reversed as to claims 5, 8 and 3
10-12. The rejection of claims 6, 13, 14, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over 4
Sedwick in view of Currie is reversed. 5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 6
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 7
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
hh 20
21
KNOBLE, YOSHIDA & DUNLEAVY 22
EIGHT PENN CENTER 23
SUITE 1350, 1628 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. 24
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 25