Ex Parte Ingvarsson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

10590183 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/590,183 08/18/2006 Lars Ingvarsson HT-127 4031
7590 06/19/2013
Mark P. Stone
Attorney at Law
400 Columbus Avenue
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, DEBRA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LARS INGVARSSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-006615
Application 10/590,183
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006615
Application 10/590,183

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 13-18. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for forming, in a production line, profiles (50)
with a cross-section that varies along the length thereof, said
profiles being formed from a plane metal strip (10) that is
unwound from a coil (9), said method employing edge cutters
(14) and a plurality of roll-forming units (17-24), the edge
cutters and the roll-forming units being individually
displaceable sideways relative to the strip,
the steps of said method comprising:
controlling the edge cutters along a first pair of opposed
curved lines (51, 52) to sever opposed edges of said strip as said
strip moves along the production line to provide the strip with
curved opposed edges;
thereafter controlling the roll-forming units along a
second pair of opposed curved lines (53, 56) for forming a first
pair of corners (53, 56) defining opposed flanges (79,80) to
each side of the center of said metal strip (10) as said strip
moves through a first roll-forming section of said production
line, and
thereafter controlling the roll-forming units along a third
pair of opposed curved lines (54, 58) for forming a second pair
of corners (54, 58) defining opposed sides (77,78) to each side
of the center of said metal strip between said first corners, after
said first corners have been formed, as said strip moves through
a second roll-forming section of the production line,
wherein the curvatures of the first, second, and third pairs
of opposed curved lines vary the cross section of the profile
formed from the strip along the length thereof.
Appeal 2011-006615
Application 10/590,183

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ingvarsson (US 7,107,807 B2; iss. Sep. 19, 2006) and
Green (US 7,111,481 B2; iss. Sep. 26, 2006); and
2. Claims 4-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ingvarsson, Green, and Schule (US 2004/0244453 A1;
pub. Dec. 9, 2004).

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Ingvarsson discloses each of the features
recited in claim 1 except the order of the corner forming operations and finds
that Green discloses forming a first corner before a second corner. Ans. 3-4.
The Examiner explains that Ingvarsson inherently discloses controlling the
roll-forming units along a second pair of curved lines for forming a first pair
of corners defining opposed flanges and controlling the roll-forming units
along a third pair of curved lines for forming a second pair of corners
defining opposed sides. Ans. 6-7 (citing Ingvarsson, col. 5, ll. 25-42).
Appellant contends that even if the device of Ingvarsson is capable of
performing the claimed method, the reference does not expressly or
inherently disclose the steps recited in the method. Reply Br. 3. We agree.
While the device in Ingvarsson may be capable of performing the steps of
the claimed method, the reference does not expressly disclose these steps.
Further, we do not see where Ingvarsson inherently discloses the steps of the
method as suggested by the Examiner.
The Examiner has not pointed to anything indicating why the claimed
controlling of the roll-forming units along a second pair of curved lines for
Appeal 2011-006615
Application 10/590,183

4
forming a first pair of corners defining opposed flanges, and controlling of
the roll-forming units along a third pair of curved lines for forming a second
pair of corners defining opposed sides, are necessarily present in Ingvarsson.
The portion of Ingvarsson cited by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1
simply explains that the roll-forming machine shown in Figures 11 and 12 is
capable of producing sheets including curved shapes. See Ingvarsson, col. 5,
l. 38.
Even if the disclosure of Ingvarsson could be construed as disclosing
controlling roll-forming units along a pair of curved lines for forming a pair
of corners in a metal strip, it does not necessarily follow that Ingvarsson also
discloses controlling roll-forming units along another pair of curved lines
for forming another pair of corners in the metal strip as required by claim 1.
Based on Ingvarsson’s limited disclosure regarding the operation of the roll-
forming machine shown in Figures 11 and 12, we are not convinced that
Ingvarsson inherently discloses the claimed method. See In re Robertson,
169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims
2 and 3 which depend from claim 1. Claims 4-8 and 13-18 depend from
claim 1 and the stated basis for the rejection of claims 4-8 and 13-18 does
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 4-8 and 13-18.

Appeal 2011-006615
Application 10/590,183

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 and 13-
18.

REVERSED

mls