Ex parte Frohlich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2002

09101704 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2002)

The examiner requested an opportunity to present1
arguments at the oral hearing (Paper No. 32), and was duly
notified on January 2, 2002 via office E-mail sent by Pamela
Bennett at the Board as to the hearing time and date, but did
not attend the hearing.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 35
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HELMUT FROHLICH
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
____________
HEARD: JANUARY 22, 20021
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
Our understanding of this document is derived from a2
reading of a translation thereof prepared in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the translation is
appended to this opinion.
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 14
through 32. These claims constitute all of the claims
remaining in the application.

Appellant’s invention pertains to a process and device
for continuously winding webs. A basic understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims
14, 17, and 29, respective copies of which appear in the
APPENDIX to the brief (Paper No. 28).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Orbach 4,611,769 Sep. 16, 1986
Wilky and Andermann DE-U 1,970,847 Oct. 19,
1967
(Germany) (DE-‘847)2
The following rejection is before us for review.
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have3
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
(continued...)
3
Claims 14 through 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the German reference (DE-
‘847) in view of Orbach.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 29), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
28 and 31).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,3
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
(...continued)3
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
We do not sustain the rejection of appellant’s claims
before us.
Independent claim 14 is drawn to a process for
continuously winding a plurality of longitudinally cut paper
webs at machine speed by using support rollers and at least
one pair of disks associated with each of the support rollers
and, inter alia, requires the steps of axially adjusting the
disks of the at least one pair of disks to correspond to a
width of web to be wound and running the supporting rollers
and a first cardboard tube up to machine speed thereby winding
the web onto the first cardboard drive, wherein the first
cardboard tube is driven by a first core winding device.
Independent claim 17 recites a device for continuously winding
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
In claim 17, line 11, for grammatical correctness and4
clarity it appears that the word --a-- should be inserted
before “winding”.
5
webs comprising, inter alia, a longitudinally cutting device
positioned to cut a web into a plurality of webs, at least two
support rolls positioned downstream from the longitudinal
cutting device, at least one pair of disks associated with
each support roll, with the disks of the at least one pair of
disks being axially positionable to accommodate a width of web
to be wound, and at least two winding devices comprising a
core drive adapted to receive a winding tube to drive the4
tube to a machine speed. Independent claim 29 sets forth a
process for continuously winding a plurality of webs in an
apparatus that includes a longitudinal cutting device, at
least two support rolls positioned downstream from the
longitudinal cutting device, and at least one pair of disks
associated with each support roll, with the disks of the at
least one pair of disks being axially positionable, and
further requires, inter alia, axially adjusting the disks of
the at least one pair of disks to correspond to a width of web
to be wound and rotating winding tubes and support rolls at a
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
Based upon the examiner’s statements (answer, pages 45
and 7), it appears that the examiner may have viewed the disks
of DE-’847 as inherently adjustable. We discern no basis for
this inherency determination in the DE-’847 teaching.
Nevertheless, the examiner also indicates (answer, page 5)
that it would have been obvious to make the disks of DE-’847
adjustable.
As set forth on page 6 of the translation of DE-’847,6
the installation of a longitudinal cutting device also allows
the width of the material web to be subdivided in such a way
that a plurality of finished rolls of different widths can be
made.
6
machine speed, wherein the winding tubes are driven by a core
drive of a winding device.
In rejecting appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the examiner relies upon the combined teachings of DE-‘847 and
Orbach. As recognized by the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5)
the rolling, winding, and cutting machine of DE-’847 lacks a
longitudinal cutter, a second support roll, and disks that are
adjustable. From our perspective, even if one having5
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rework
the machine of DE-’847 in light of the teaching of Orbach of
slitting a web and winding onto two support rolls, we6
perceive no suggestion whatsoever in the evidence before us
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
7
for structurally altering the overall machine configuration of
DE-’847 to obtain adjustable right and left turret disks 3
for setting a desired width of a web to be wound. As can be
appreciated from a consideration of Fig. I of DE-’847, the
width of a finished roll 2a is clearly capable of being
varied, without any need for adjustable turret disks 3. For
the above reasons, the rejection of appellant’s claims cannot
be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection of claims 14 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the German reference (DE-‘847) in view
of Orbach.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
8
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC:pgg
Greenblum & Bernstein P.L.C.
1941 Roland Clark Place
Reston, VA 20191