Ex parte HERMANNS et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 1998

08326608 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 20, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FERDINAND-JOSEF HERMANNS,
WILHELM ZITZEN,
and
ULRICH WIRTZ
_____________
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,6081
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the refusal of the examiner to
allow claims 4 and 7 through 13. Claims 5 and 6, the only other
claims remaining in the application, stand objected to by the
examiner, but are otherwise indicated to be allowable if
rewritten in independent form.
Appellants’ invention pertains to an improvement in a
textile bobbin winding machine. An understanding of the inven-
tion can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy
of which appears in the appendix to appellants’ brief.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied
the patents listed below:
O’Brien 3,393,879 Jul. 23, 1968
Nel 4,716,648 Jan. 5, 1988
Prodi et al. (Prodi) 5,056,724 Oct. 15, 1991
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 7 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Prodi in view of Nel.
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have2
(continued...)
3
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Prodi in view of Nel, as applied to claims 7
through 13 above, further in view of O’Brien.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 17), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No 16).
In the brief (page 5), appellants indicate that claim 8
and dependent claims 4, 7, and 9 through 12 stand or fall
together, while independent claim 13 stands or falls alone.
Accordingly, we focus our attention exclusively upon claims 8
and 13, infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the2
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
(...continued)2
considered all of the disclosure of each teaching 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 been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s respective rejections of
claims 8 and 13. It follows that the dependent claims stand
therewith.
This panel of the board fully comprehends the
examiner’s point of view, as expressed in the answer (Paper
No. 17). However, for the reasons articulated below, we have
concluded that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious based upon the evidence of obviousness before us.
At the outset, we point out that, as disclosed
(specification, pages 1, 2, and 3), an objective of the invention
(easier to perform maintenance) is accomplished by providing a
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
5
device for winding of yarn packages on a bobbin work station of
a textile machine which comprises a housing, with the motor for
driving a friction roller means for surface driving of a bobbin
during winding thereof comprising a stator directly received
within the housing. As further expressed by appellants (speci-
fication, page 6), the housing 12 for the operational units of
the work station 1 also serves as the housing for a drive motor
15 for the friction roller 5, the motor 15 being received in the
recess of housing 12. The stator windings 16 of the motor are
received in the recess 14 of the housing while rotor 17 of the
drive motor 15 is fastened on shaft 11 (Figure 1).

Claims 8 and 13, in the format of 37 CFR § 1.75(e), set
forth that in a textile bobbin winding machine, a device for
winding yarn packages at a work station of the winding machine,
the improvement comprising, inter alia, a motor including a
stator and rotor, a bobbin winder work station housing having a
recess formed therein (claim 8) or a stator-receiving recess
(claim 13), with the recess having the stator received and
retained thereon (claim 8) or therein (claim 13).
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
6
We appreciate that the bobbin winder work station
housing of claims 8 and 13 has the recess that receives and
retains thereon and therein the stator, respectively. In light
of appellants’ underlying disclosure (specification, page 6, and
drawings), we understand this claim language to denote that the
bobbin winder work station housing is the housing of the motor.
This viewpoint is consistent with appellants’ disclosure wherein
the motor has no separate housing apart from the housing of the
bobbin winder work station housing. This claim interpretation is
also the apparent understanding of appellants, as we derive from
their argument (brief, pages 9 and 10).
Turning now to the applied prior art we find that, in
each of the Prodi and Nel patents, motors are surrounded by motor
housings in a conventional fashion. More specifically, the
casing for motor 8 in Prodi and the casing 10 for the motor of
Nel are clearly shown, with those casings being respectively
within the collection unit 5 and the casing cover 54. The
patents relied upon simply do not teach or suggest a recess of
the collection unit structure (Prodi) or the casing cover (Nel)
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
7
to receive and retain thereon or therein the stator of a motor.
Accordingly, even if the Prodi and Nel references are combined
as proposed in the rejection, the claimed invention would not
result. As a final note, we point out that a review of the
O’Brien patent reveals to us that this reference does not
overcome the deficiency of the Prodi and Nel documents.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
respective rejections of appellants’ claims 7 through 13 and
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
8
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
9
Karl S. Sawyer, Jr.
Shefte Pinckney and Sawyer
3740 One First Union Center
301 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6020