Ex Parte Giffin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2010

10629094 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN P. GIFFIN
____________________

Appeal 2009-001898
Application 10/629,094
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: May 21, 2010
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and KEN B.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian P. Giffin (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9-13 and 15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2009-001898
Application 10/629,094

2
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to controlling a conveyance
device to transfer objects from one conveyor to another. Spec. 2, para.
[001]. Claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
9. A method of transferring blanks in a conveyance
mechanism, the method comprising:
dispensing a plurality of blanks from a feeder into a first
conveyor, the blanks being dispensed into the first conveyor
adjacent to one another in the direction of the travel of said first
conveyor;
advancing the plurality of blanks by said first conveyor
toward a second conveyor at a first velocity, said second
conveyor traveling at a second velocity and said second
velocity being greater than said first velocity;
detecting the position of a given blank of said plurality of
blanks in said first conveyor as said given blank approaches
said second conveyor;
accelerating the first conveyor from the first velocity to
substantially match the second velocity in response to detecting
the position of said given blank;
transferring said given blank from the first conveyor to
the second conveyor after said accelerating step;
decelerating the first conveyor to the first velocity after
said accelerating step and in response to detecting the position
of said given blank so that said given blank and a subsequent
blank in said first conveyor immediately adjacent to said given
blank travel at different velocities after said transferring step;
and
repeating said detecting, accelerating, transferring and
decelerating steps for each said subsequent blank.
Appeal 2009-001898
Application 10/629,094

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Delsanto US 5,038,915 Aug. 13, 1991
Long US 5,129,641 July 14, 1992
Cordia et al. US 5,341,915 Aug. 30, 1994

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cordia;
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Long and Cordia; and
3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Long, Cordia, and Delsanto.

ISSUE
The Examiner found that Cordia discloses a “first conveyor”
comprising two phasing conveyors 22, 25 and two transfer conveyors 23, 26,
and that “this [first] conveyor is accelerated in sections to accelerate articles
to match the speed of the second conveyor formed by the target conveyor
11.” Ans. 8. Appellant contends that Cordia fails to disclose a first
conveyor accelerated to substantially match the velocity of the second
conveyor. See App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellant asserts that Cordia’s
transfer conveyors 23, 26 operate at a constant velocity and that the phasing
conveyors are not accelerated to a velocity matching that of the target
conveyor. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 6, 8. Therefore, the issue is whether
Appeal 2009-001898
Application 10/629,094

4
Cordia discloses accelerating the first conveyor to substantially match the
velocity of the second conveyor.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence.
Cordia discloses a phasing conveyor system 10 comprising two
combination phasing/transfer conveyors 20, 21. Cordia, col. 7, ll. 58-59;
col. 8, ll. 38-41; figs. 1, 2. The combination phasing/transfer conveyors 20,
21 each are comprised of a phasing conveyor (elements 25 and 22,
respectively) and a transfer conveyor (26 and 23, respectively). Id., col. 8,
ll. 47-59; fig. 2. The phasing conveyors are variable speed drive, and
accelerate or decelerate as necessary to correct the position of the article so
as to properly phase the article. See id., col. 4, ll. 40-55. Each transfer
conveyor, which is located downstream of the respective phasing conveyor,
operates at a substantially constant speed that is faster than the phasing
conveyor speed, thereby accelerating the article. Id., col. 4, ll. 56-60. The
transfer conveyor speed is the same as that of the target conveyor. Id., col.
9, ll. 8-10.

ANALYSIS
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Cordia
In Cordia’s system, the acceleration of the article to the target
conveyor velocity occurs during the transfer of the article from the variable
speed phasing conveyor to the faster, substantially constant speed transfer
conveyor. See Findings of Fact. However, claim 9 requires the step of
Appeal 2009-001898
Application 10/629,094

5
accelerating the first conveyor – not merely the article – to match the second
velocity, which is the velocity of the second conveyor (found to be Cordia’s
target conveyor). The Examiner does not direct our attention to any
disclosure in Cordia of accelerating the phasing conveyors to match the
target conveyor speed. As mentioned above, the transfer conveyors are
traveling at a substantially constant speed. Therefore, it does not appear that
any of Cordia’s conveyors are accelerated to match the second velocity.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent
claims 10-12 as anticipated by Cordia.

Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Long and Cordia
Method claim 15 depends from independent claim 9 and recites, inter
alia, that the second conveyor includes upper and lower belt members. The
Examiner found that Long discloses a servomotor-driven feeder conveyor
18b including upper and lower belts, and that the servomotor “is capable of
acceleration from a first velocity to a second velocity ….” Ans. 4-5
(emphasis added). It does not appear that the Examiner found that Long
discloses the step of accelerating a first conveyor from a first velocity to
substantially match the second velocity of a second conveyor, as required by
parent claim 9. See Ans. 5. Rather, the Examiner relies on Cordia and
found that that reference shows a controller and a servo motor “which
increases the speed of the feeder conveyor from a first velocity to a second
velocity matching the speed of a feeder conveyor 11 ….” Ans. 5. For the
reasons discussed above, we cannot find that Cordia discloses the recited
step of accelerating the first conveyor to substantially match the second
velocity. Additionally, the Examiner’s articulated reason to combine the
Appeal 2009-001898
Application 10/629,094

6
references is premised on this erroneous finding. See Ans. 5-6. As such, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 as obvious over Long and Cordia.

Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Long, Cordia, and Delsanto
Method claim 13 depends indirectly from claim 9. The Examiner
does not rely on Long or Delsanto in any manner that cures the deficiency of
the underlying anticipation rejection of claim 9. See Ans. 6, 11. As such,
we also reverse the rejection of claim 13.

CONCLUSION
Cordia does not disclose accelerating the first conveyor to
substantially match the velocity of the second conveyor.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-13 and 15 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls

DAVID N. FRONEK
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 1500
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1498