Ex parte Lotsch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2001

08851017 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2001)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KURT LOTSCH
__________
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before STAAB, MCQUADE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Kurt Lotsch originally took this appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 7 through 9. Upon
reconsideration, the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of
claim 9 which now stands objected to as depending from a
rejected base claim (see page 2 in the examiner’s answer,
Paper No. 12). Thus, the appeal as to claim 9 is hereby
dismissed, leaving for review the standing rejections of
claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8. Claims 4 through 6, the only
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
2
other claims pending in the application, stand objected to
along with claim 9 as depending from a rejected base claim.
THE INVENTION
The subject matter on appeal relates to “a method and a
device for laterally aligning a sheet, more particularly, by
an axially displaceable sheet gripper device on a cylinder
or a drum of a sheet-processing machine, having a control
roller and a cam disk cooperating with the control roller at
an end face” (specification, page 1). Claims 1 and 3 are
illustrative and read as follows:
1. A method for laterally aligning a sheet in a sheet-
processing machine, the sheet being retained by sheet
grippers which are displaced axially on a common carriage
with respect to an alignment cylinder, which comprises
fixing the carriage when it reaches a predetermined desired
position by exerting a braking force on the carriage.
3. A device for laterally aligning a sheet by an
axially displaceable sheet gripper device on a cylinder or a
drum of a sheet-processing machine, having a control roller
and a cam disk having an end face cooperating with the
control roller at the end face, comprising a carriage to
which the sheet gripper device is fastened, and a braking
system by which said carriage is fixable with respect to the
alignment cylinder.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence
of anticipation and obviousness are:
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
3
Wieland 4,833,989 May 30, 1989
Malachowski et al. 5,219,159 Jun. 15, 1993
(Malachowski)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Wieland.
Claims 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wieland in view of Malachowski.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 12) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3 and 8
Wieland discloses a method and apparatus for laterally
aligning a sheet in a rotary printing machine. The
apparatus includes a sheet transfer drum 1 having a groove 7
in its peripheral surface, an axially shiftable carriage 8
disposed in the groove, a plurality of gripper fingers 12
arrayed on the carriage, a control roller 19 mounted on one
end of the carriage, a control cam 22 located adjacent the
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
4
control roller, springs 20 for urging the control roller
into rolling contact with the control cam, a stepper or
servo motor 37, 54 operatively connected to the control cam
for adjusting
its orientation relative to the control roller, and a
measuring head 44 for sensing the actual position of a sheet
side edge. In use (see column 5, line 27 et seq.), a sheet
is fed to sheet transfer drum 1 and gripped by fingers 12 on
carriage 8, the actual position of the sheet side edge is
sensed by measuring head 44, the actual position is compared
with a desired position and any difference between the two
is utilized to control the operation of stepper or servo
motor 37, 54 to adjust the orientation of control cam 22 so
as to cause carriage 8 to translate the sheet gripped by
fingers 12 to the desired position.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words,
there must be no difference between the claimed invention
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
5
and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565,
1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As framed by the appellant, the dispositive issue with
respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection is whether
Wieland meets the “braking” limitations in independent
claims 1 and 3. As indicated above, method claim 1 requires
the step of “fixing the carriage when it reaches a
predetermined desired position by exerting a braking force
on the carriage,” and apparatus or device claim 3 requires
“a braking system by which said carriage is fixable with
respect to the alignment cylinder.” According to the
examiner (see page 2 in the final rejection and page 4 in
the answer), these limitations read on Wieland’s stepper or
servo motor 37, 54 and its manner of use.
The examiner’s position here is not sound. Although
Wieland’s carriage 8 apparently stops, and is fixed in
position with respect to cylinder 1, upon de-energization of
stepper or servo motor 37, 54, this alone does not make the
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
6
motor a “brake” under any ordinary and accustomed definition
of this term. For example, Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co. 1977) defines “brake” as
meaning “something used to slow down or stop movement or
activity.” The mere fact that Wieland’s motor ceases
furnishing motive power to the carriage 8 does not
necessarily mean that it acts to slow down or stop the
movement of the
carriage. While other motive devices might perform a
braking action when de-energized, Wieland does not give any
indication that motor 37, 54 (or its associated transmission
means) does. Thus, the examiner’s finding that the
“braking” limitations in claims 1 and 3 read on Wieland’s
motor 37, 54 is inconsistent with the manner in which these
limitations and the Wieland reference would be understood by
a person of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner’s
finding is also inconsistent with the appellant’s
specification, in light of which the claims must be read,
which draws a distinction between a brake and the type of
motor disclosed by Wieland by stating “[i]n an advantageous
manner, braking of the lateral movement of the gripper
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
7
carriage can be performed significantly faster than driving
to a desired position by an adjusting motor” (page 4).
Hence, Wieland’s motor 37, 54 and its method of use do not
meet the “braking” limitations in claims 1 and 3. Since
Wieland does not disclose any other structure or steps
responding to these limitations, the examiner’s
determination that this reference discloses each and every
element of the invention set forth in claims 1 and 3, and in
claim 8 which depends from claim 3, is not well taken.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3 and 8 as being anticipated
by Wieland.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 7
Claims 2 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 3,
respectively, and pertain to a sensor or detection system
for identifying a desired sheet alignment position. In
short, Malachowski’s disclosure of a sheet alignment device
having such a sensor or detector system fails to overcome
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
8
the above noted deficiencies of Wieland with respect to the
“braking” limitations in parent claims 1 and 3.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 7 as being unpatentable
over Wieland in view of Malachowski.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
3, 7 and 8 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2000-0582
Application 08/851,017
9
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
LERNER & GREENBERG
P. O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480