Ex Parte Harnish

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2006

10143209 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID ALAN HARNISH
____________

Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before McQUADE, NASE, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims1 to 20,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.

Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 2
The appellant's invention relates to an adjustable, self-correcting web substrate
folding system that can sense the physical characteristic of a moving web substrate that
is undergoing folding and adjust the fold angle geometry to provide the correct tension
(specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Whitley, Jr. et. al. (Whitley) 4,699,606 Oct. 13, 1987
Shiba 5,052,296 Oct. 1, 1991
Wessman 5,902,222 May 11, 1999

THE REJECTIONS

Claims 1 to 9, 11, and 16 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wessman.
Claims 1 to 7, 10 to 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatenable over Shiba.
Claims 13 to 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Wessman in view of Whitley.

Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed April 2, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed February 26, 2004) and reply brief (filed May 10, 2004) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant’s claimed subject matter is an adjustable web folding system for folding
a web substrate. The system has a machine direction as depicted by the arrow marked
MD in Figure 1, a cross machine direction and a Z direction. The system includes an
adjustable folding detour 12 which is positioned so that its longitudinal axis is coincident
with the machine direction of the system. There is also one sensor 14 which measures
a physical characteristic of the web substrate prior to the web substrate contacting the
folding detour (Figure 1; specification at pages 5 to 6). Appellant’s specification
discloses that examples of the physical characteristics include:
. . . tension, opacity, caliper, shear, basis weight, denier, elongation, air
flow, stress, strain, modulus of elasticity, coefficient of friction, surface
finish RMS, yield strength, color, stiffness, bending modulus, temperature,
Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 4
dielectric constant, static electric charge, physical composition, and
combinations thereof [specification at page 6].

The position of the detour is adjusted to provide equal path lengths for the web
substrate in response to the value of the physical characteristic of the web substrate
prior to the web substrate contacting the detour (specification at page 7). The
specification discloses that for a web substrate to have equal path lengths each cross-
machine direction (CD) point of the web substrate must travel an equal geometric
distance (equal path geometry) across a folding surface (specification at page 1).
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 9, 11 and 16 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wessman. We initially note that a claim is anticipated
only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the
reference.
The examiner is of the opinion that Wessman describes the invention as claimed
(see answer at page 3).
The appellant argues that Wessman does not describe the measurement of a
physical (intrinsic) property of the web substrate and the adjustment of the detour in
response to the value of the physical characteristic. In appellant’s view, Wessman is
Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 5
concerned with web material alignment and maintenance of the central line of a web
material so that the difference between the length of the generatrices of the side edges
and the central line of the web material is very small.
We agree with the appellant that Wessman does not describe an adjustable web
folding system which adjust the position of the folding detour based on the sensing of a
physical characteristic of the web. Instead, the Wessman sensors measure the
presence of the edges of the web indicative of the alignment of the web. Based on this
measurement, the guide roll 3 of the detour 20 is adjusted so as to adjust the position of
the web so as to align the edges of the web (col 1, lines 33 to 34; col. 4, line 51 to col. 5,
line 5). Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2
to 9, 11, and 16 dependent thereon.
Claim 17 recites that there is a first force sensor for measuring the first force on
the web substrate, a second force sensor that measures a second force on the web
substrate and the first and second force forces are compared to produce a resultant
force. The folding detour is adjusted in relation to the resultant force. In regard to the
recitations in claim 17, the examiner states:
. . . The web detour 20 is adjusted by device 13 due to the magnitude of a
resultant force signal generated by regulating device (not shown; see
column 4, lines 51 to 61). The resultant force signal is a comparative
measurement of tension in the web 1 (i.e. if the tension in one edge of the
web is greater than the other then only one sensor 12 will generate a
signal) [answer at page 3].

Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 6
We do not agree. Wessman describes scanners 12 which detect the presence of
the web. Wessman does not describe the measurement of forces on the web.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 17 and claims 18 to
20 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 7, 10 to 12 and 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Shiba. In support of this
rejection, the examiner states:
Shiba discloses a [sic, an] adjustable web folding system comprising an
adjustable folding detour DR, NR1, NR2; first and second sensors 41 and
51 for measuring tension of web WS; guide GR; see figure 2. The web
detour is adjusted by cylinders 1 and 2 due to the magnitude of a resultant
force signal generated by output device 6; see column 8, lines 15-20
[answer at page 4].

Shiba describes a control device for paper traveling tension which includes
detectors 41, which detect the paper tension on the web (Figure 2; col. 5, lines 49 to
51). The pressure force on the propeller rollers W against the drag roller DR is changed
in response to a determination that the paper tension is not within a reference control
range (col. 7, lines 17 to 42). Neither the drag roller (DR) nor the nipping rollers (NR1
and NR2) are adjusted. As such, even if we considered these elements to be folding
detours, there is no description of adjusting the “position of said adjustable folding
detour” as recited in claim 1 or of “ said folding angle is adjustable” as recited in claim
17. Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and claims 2 to 7,
10 to 12 dependent thereon and claims 17 and claim 18 dependent thereon.
Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 7
We turn lastly to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13 to 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wessman in view of Whitley. The examiner relies on
Whitley for describing a web adjustable tensioning/position control device with first and
second contacting edges.
We have examined the disclosure of Whitley and determined that it does not
disclose or suggest the adjustment of a folding detour in response to the measurement
of a physical characteristic of the web substrate and therefore the Whitley disclosure
does not cure the deficiencies noted above for the Wessman disclosure in relation to
the rejection of claim 1 from which claims 13 to 15 depend. Therefore, we will not
sustain this rejection for the same reasons noted above in regard to the rejection of
claim 1.

Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 8
The decision of the examine is reversed.
REVERSED

JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-2297
Application No. 10/143,209

Παγε 9
The Procter & Gamble Company
Intellectual Property Division
Winton Hill Technical Center - Box 161
6110 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224

MEC/ki

Comment [jvn1]: Type address

APPEAL NO. 2005-2297
APPLICATION NO. 10/143,209

APJ CRAWFORD

APJ NASE

APJ

DECISION:

PREPARED: May 13, 2006

OB/HD

PALM:

ACTS 2:

DISK (FOIA):

REPORT:

BOOK:

GAU:

44C1:

IFW in E. Cook's Incoming: