Ex Parte HarnishDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 14, 200610143209 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2006) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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: Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation