Ex parte Junghans et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2001

09033145 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2001)

Claim 1 was amended subsequent to the final rejection.1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RUDI JUNGHANS and MATHIAS ZUBER
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0092
Application No. 09/033,145
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before McQUADE, NASE, and LAZARUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 to 5, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.1
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 2
Application No. 09/033,145
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a central
lubrication system for a rotary printing press. A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Krambs 4,967,880 Nov. 6,
1990
Zoch et al. (Zoch) 5,565,094 Oct. 15,
1996
Claims 1, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Krambs.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Krambs in view of Zoch.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 3
Application No. 09/033,145
No. 8, mailed September 7, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed April 21, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed March 20, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
June 26, 2000) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 4
Application No. 09/033,145
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A central lubrication system for a rotary printing
press where water will enter the lubrication system only
in exceptional circumstances, comprising:
a central supply of lubricant for individual
lubricating points;
a line system for feeding an oversupply of lubricant
to the individual lubricating points;
a lubricant return system for returning the excess
lubricant;
a test box connected, upstream of the central
supply, to the lubricant return system;
a sensor received in said test box, said sensor in
said test box constantly testing the lubricant for the
presence of a certain percentage of water in the
lubricant;
an inlet formed in said test box, said inlet
connected to the lubricant return system; and
an outlet formed in said test box so that the
lubricant is able to circulate about said sensor in said
test box between said inlet and said outlet thereof.
Krambs' invention relates to a monitoring process on
machine assemblies with central lubrication in rotary printing
presses, with such machine assemblies possibly being, for
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 5
Application No. 09/033,145
example, printing units, which have a multiplicity of bearing
points, engaging teeth, crank drives and similar. Via a
central lubrication system, the lubrication points are
supplied with lubrication oil, which is then collected and is
checked in a central oil-collection tank for the possible
occurrence of water, before being supplied to the central
lubrication system.
Figure 1 of Krambs shows an oil-collection tank 1 on the
operator side of a rotary printing press preferably in the
region of the printing units. This oil-collection tank is
supplied via a connection line 2 with the lubrication oil that
escapes from bearing points in the printing press. A smaller
oil tank 3 is provided inside oil-collection tank 1. The oil
supplied via the connection line 2 flows into the smaller oil
tank 3. The small oil tank is removable from the
oil-collection tank 1, for which purpose a lid 4 is provided.
Connection line 2 is attached to this lid 4 by means of a
suitable connector sleeve 5. After the lid 4 is removed from
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 6
Application No. 09/033,145
connection line 2, the smaller oil tank 3 can be taken out in
order to clean and remove water from the smaller oil tank 3.
The oil supplied by Krambs' connection line 2 fills the
small oil tank 3 until the latter overflows. The oil that
overflows from the small oil tank 3 is then collected by
larger
oil-collection tank 1. Supported in the cover 6 of tank 1 is
a float 7 or some other level detection arrangement. The
float 7 has an upper switching position 8 and a lower
switching position 9. When the oil in the tank 1 rises and
float 7 makes contact with the upper switching position 8, an
electrical signal is generated, which is supplied through a
signal box 10 to a control device in a motor 11. This device
switches on a motor 11, which drives a pump 12. By means of a
continuous pumping suction line 13, the pump 12 pumps the oil
out of the tank 1 until the level of oil in the tank lowers
the float 7 to make contact with the lower switching position
9. Consequently, the motor 11 is switched off as a result of
a further signal generated by the lower switching position 9.
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 7
Application No. 09/033,145
A line 14 conducts the oil pumped out of tank 1 to a central
oil-supply system 30 (see Figure 2).
Krambs teaches (column 4, lines 28-43) that should the
lubrication oil supplied through the connection line 2 contain
water, which might happen, for example, as a result of a leak
in a cooling-water line, the water will collect in the lower
region of the oil tank 3. If the leak entails just a few
drops of water, these drops may remain in the oil tank 3 over
a lengthy period of time without there being any detriment to
the system. If, however, the quantity of water in the oil
tank 3 rises to a predefined level, a sensor 15 generates a
signal that
disables the circuit of the motor 11 and that simultaneously
generates a warning signal so that the printer, or other
personnel, is able to detect and remedy the potentially
damaging situation in the water supply. The small oil tank 3
is then emptied and the system is returned to normal
operation.
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 8
Application No. 09/033,145
As shown in Figure 2 of Krambs, a suitable sensor for
detecting the presence of water in tank 3 comprises two
concentrically located spaced apart tubes connected to the
respective poles of a low voltage power supply, to provide a
low voltage differential between the tubes. When water rises
in tank 3 to a height that reaches the lower end of the
concentric tubes, current begins to flow between the tubes.
As the water rises above the lower end of the tubes, current
flow reaches a
threshold value sufficient to operate a sensor circuit 32.
Sensor circuit 32 is connected to operate a relay or switch 34
to open the circuit that otherwise energizes motor 11 when
signal box 10 calls for pump 12 to pump oil from large tank 1.
Sensor circuit 32 also, preferably, operates to simultaneously
energize an alarm device 36.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 6; reply brief, pp. 2-3)
that the sensor of Krambs which tests for the physical
accumulation of water is not a sensor which constantly tests
the lubricant for the presence of a certain percentage of
water in the lubricant as recited in claim 1 on appeal. We
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 9
Application No. 09/033,145
agree. In that regard, Krambs sensor 15 does not constantly
test the lubricant for the presence of a certain percentage of
water in the lubricant since sensor 15 is a water level sensor
which performs no testing of the lubricant for the presence of
a certain percentage of water in the lubricant when the water
level in tank 3 is below the lower ends of the concentric
tubes of sensor 15.
Since all the limitations of claims 1 are not met by
Krambs for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and dependent claims 4 and 5,
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reviewed the reference to Zoch additionally
applied in the rejection of claims 2 and 3 (dependent on claim
1) but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiency
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 10
Application No. 09/033,145
of Krambs discussed above regarding claim 1. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed and the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD B. LAZARUS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 11
Application No. 09/033,145
LERNER AND GREENBERG
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
Appeal No. 2001-0092 Page 12
Application No. 09/033,145
JVN/jg