Ex Parte Hanten

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2014

11931314 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JURGEN HANTEN
____________

Appeal 2012-003497
Application 11/931,314
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003497
Application 11/931,314

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jurgen Hanten (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A filling device for filling viscous filling material into a
tubular casing material comprising:
a shutoff valve through which pressurized filling material
flows;
a pump upstream of the shutoff valve providing
pressurized filling material to the shutoff valve;
a filling tube disposed downstream from said shutoff
valve in the direction of flow of the filling material;
a clip placement and clip closing device disposed
downstream from said filling tube in the direction of flow of the
filling material;
a supply of tubular casing material disposed on the filling
tube; and
at least one sensor measuring the length of casing
material drawn from the supply of casing material, an output
signal of said at least one sensor for adjusting the volume of
filling material product by controlling the opening and closing
of the shutoff valve through which the pressurized filling
material is fed to the filling tube.
App. Br. 22, Claims App’x.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Adams US 3,916,598 Nov. 4, 1975
Steinke US 5,241,800 Sep. 7, 1993
Stanley US 2003/0073397 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Appeal 2012-003497
Application 11/931,314

3
Rejection
Appellant seeks review of the following rejection:
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Steinke, Stanley, and Adams.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
The Examiner concluded that the combination of Steinke, Stanley,
and Adams would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1-21 obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 4-6. The
Examiner found, in relevant part, that “Adams discloses a method and an
apparatus in which at least one sensor (13) measuring the length of casing
material, and the output signal of the sensor is connected to the control unit
(14) and signaling the control of other devices such as the filling material
feed pump.” Id. at 5 (citing Adams, col. 6, ll. 28-58). The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of invention
to have modified Steinke[’s] apparatus and method by
incorporating the at least one sensor measuring the length of
casing material as taught by Adams to provide an effective
means to measure the length of casing material and in turn use
the output signal of the sensor for controlling the flow of the
flowable food product.
Id.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to the rejection,
including that the Examiner’s interpretation of Adams is erroneous and
therefore Adams does not disclose the claimed sensor. App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2012-003497
Application 11/931,314

4
Appellant asserts that “the output signal employed for controlling the
tightness is generated by a separate pressure sensor 18 and not the speed
sensor 13. In other words, the sensor for measuring the length of the casing
does not control the pressure of the filling material.” Id.
Adams discloses an “improved packaging machine of the type which
forms a web of pliable film material into a tube, feeds material to be
packaged into the tube, and constricts and seals the filled tube at intervals to
divide the same into a series of individual packages.” Adams, col. 1,
ll. 7-12. Adams teaches that “[f]or automatic length control, an electronic
digital pickup 13 . . . senses and records the speed of the film and transmits
the speed to digital length indicator and control unit 14.” Id. at col. 6,
ll. 28-32. Adams also teaches that pressure probe 18 “measures the pressure
in the cartridge and transmits a corresponding electrical signal to control unit
19.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 52-53.
Adams further explains that control units 14 and 19 actuate different
drive elements. Control unit 14 is adapted to transmit a signal to electric-to-
pneumatic converter 16, “which then adjusts pneumatic positioner 17 and
consequently the speed of constricting-closure unit motor 11.” Id. at col. 6,
ll. 42-46. On the other hand, pressure control unit 19 is adapted to transmit a
signal “to electric-to-pneumatic converter 20, which in turn adjusts
pneumatic positioner 21, thereby adjusting pump 24 and the speed of feed
pump motor 12.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 55-58.
As reflected in the above discussion of Adams, and illustrated in
Adams’ Figure 1, the output signal of digital pickup 13, which is connected
to control unit 14, does not control the filling material feed pump 38.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that Adams does not disclose that the
Appeal 2012-003497
Application 11/931,314

5
sensor for measuring the length of the casing controls the filling material
feed pump.
In the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner
states that Adams was only relied upon for “teaching of an also old and
well[-]known practice in the art in which a sensor is employed for measuring
the length of casing material, and the output signal of the senor is feed [sic]
back to the control unit (14).” Ans. 7-8. The Examiner explains that “the
combination of Steinke, Stanley and Adams would take the signal provided
by the sensor (t[aught] by Adams) and configuring the signal to control the
shutoff valve (t[aught] by Stanley) located downstream from the pump (as
disclose[d] by Steinke).” Id. at 8. The Examiner further concludes that it
would have been obvious to combine the references as proposed because
“applying a known technique to a known device would have yield[ed]
predictable results.” Id. at 8 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
The Examiner’s combination is deficient because it fails to recognize
that the Examiner’s reason for combining Adams was to “provide an
effective means to measure the length of the casing material and in turn use
the output signal of the sensor for controlling the flow of the flowable food
product.” Ans. 5 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning does
not have a rational underpinning because it relies upon the same erroneous
factual finding with respect to Adams.1

1 The Examiner’s erroneous finding affects independent claims 1 and 15,
which recite similar limitations in this regard, and claims 2-14 and 16-21,
which depend therefrom.
Appeal 2012-003497
Application 11/931,314

6
Further, the above-quoted Examiner’s shorthand rendition of which
references are relied upon as disclosing which elements fails to consider
each and every element of the claims and the recitations in the claims as to
how each element interacts with the others. In such circumstances, the
Examiner’s failure cannot be remedied solely by pointing to KSR, as
reflected above, without explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have selected these elements from these references and combined
them in the manner claimed such that the claimed subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21.

REVERSED

mls