Ex Parte LE ROUX

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

14290959 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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.
14/290,959 05/29/2014 Gerhard LE ROUX BM30103USD 1090
23413 7590 03/15/2018
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street TAWFIK, SAMEH
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERHARD LE ROUX1
Appeal 2018-001529
Application 14/290,959
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1,2, and 4—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Garthaffiier (US 2009/0166376 Al, pub. July 2, 2009).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing in accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on March 6, 2018.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Tobacco Research and Development Institute
(Proprietary) Limited, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001529
Application 14/290,959
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A feed mechanism to feed objects for insertion into tobacco
industry products, the feed mechanism comprising:
a rotary disk for receiving objects, the rotary disk having
a first axis of rotation and including a plurality of channels that
rotate with the rotary disk about said first axis of rotation,
wherein, in use, objects are urged centrifugally through said
channels; and
a delivery wheel comprising object-receiving pockets for
receiving objects dispensed from said channels;
wherein one or more of said channels deviates from a
radial path;
wherein a first angular separation between inlets of two
neighboring channels measured from the first axis of rotation is
greater than a second angular separation between corresponding
outlets of said two neighboring channels measured from the
first axis of rotation; and
wherein the objects urged through said two neighboring
channels are inserted into the tobacco industry product in close
succession in correspondence with the second angular separation
between the corresponding outlets.
DISCUSSION
Independent claims 1 and 20, as well as claims 2, 4—19, and 21
depending from claim 1, require that a first angular separation between
inlets of two neighboring channels measured from a first axis of rotation is
greater than a second angular separation between corresponding outlets of
said two neighboring channels measured from the first axis of rotation.
Claims App. 1, 3^4. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—21 is
predicated in pertinent part on the Examiner’s finding that “Garthaffher
2
Appeal 2018-001529
Application 14/290,959
discloses the angular separation] between the inlets of two channels at the
inlets being smaller than at the outlets”; determination that “[i]t is reasonable
to presume that modifying Garthaffher’s channels to have the angular
separation at the inlets to be greater than the outlet, would be nothing more
than ... a matter of engineering design choice”; and conclusion that it would
have been obvious to modify Garthaffher’s apparatus and method “by
having the angular separation at the inlets to be greater than the angular
separation at the outlets, in order to assure comfortable feeding of the
products into the channels and avoid any machine jamming.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner’s finding that Garthaffher discloses an angular
separation between the inlets of two neighboring channels (passageways 20)
that is smaller than the angular separation between the outlets of said two
channels is incorrect. As shown in Garthaffner’s Figure 1, Garthaffher’s
passageways are “radially arranged and outwardly extending.” Garthaffher
17. Thus, the angular separation between the inlets of two neighboring
passageways 20 is the same as the angular separation between the outlets of
said two passageways. See Appeal Br. 4 (arguing Garthaffher “appears to
disclose the angular separation between the inlets of two channels being the
same as the angular separation between the outlets of the two channels”).
The smaller physical (i.e., length or distance) separation between the inlets is
attributed to the fact that the inlets are disposed radially inward relative to
the outlets, but the angular separation between the inlets and the outlets is
the same in Garthaffher.
Further, for essentially the reasons explained on pages 4—7 of the
Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to
modify Garthaffner’s apparatus and method “by having the angular
3
Appeal 2018-001529
Application 14/290,959
separation at the inlets to be greater than the angular separation at the
outlets, in order to assure comfortable feeding of the products into the
channels and avoid any machine jamming” appears to be at odds with the
Examiner’s presumption “that modifying Garthaffher's channels to have the
angular separation at the inlets to be greater than the outlet, would be
nothing more than as a matter of engineering design choice.” See Final Act.
4. Moreover, the Examiner does not explain how the proposed modification
of making the angular separation between two neighboring passageway
outlets smaller than the angular separation between the two neighboring
passageway inlets in Garthaffher would achieve the Examiner’s articulated
benefit of assuring comfortable feeding of the products into the channels and
avoiding any machine jamming, in the apparatus of Garthaffher, which
includes metering plate 30. See Appeal Br. 7.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection is premised on an
incorrect finding as to the angular separation between inlets of two
neighboring passageways relative to the angular separation between outlets
of said two neighboring passageways, and the articulated reasons for the
proposed modification lack rational underpinnings. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1,2, and 4—21 as unpatentable over
Garthaffher.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4—21 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
4