Ex Parte McNeil

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 2009

10880698 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEVIN BENSON MCNEIL
____________

Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: December 10, 2009
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin Benson McNeil (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. Appellant’s
representative presented oral argument on December 3, 2009. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and apparatus for concurrent
converting of multiple web materials including a first unwind station 100 for
a first web material 152 having a first width, a second unwind station 200 for
a second web material 252 having a second width, a first converting station
160, a second converting station 260 and an operator station 400. Spec. 4, ll.
2-3; Spec. 5, ll. 15-25 and fig. 1. A portion of the first web material 152
converted by the first converting station 160 is separated from a portion of
the second web material 252 converted by the second converting station 260
by a distance that is less than twice the greater of the first width and the
second width. Spec. 6, ll. 32-35.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. An apparatus for converting multiple web products, the
apparatus comprising:

a) a first unwind station capable of unwinding a first web
material from a roll of the first web material, the first web
material having a first width;

b) a second unwind station capable of unwinding a second web
from a roll of the second web material, the second web material
having a second width;
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

3

c) a first web converting station capable of receiving the first
web material from the first unwind station and performing a
transformative operation on the first web material;

d) a second web converting station capable of receiving the
second web material from the second web unwind station and
performing a transformative operation on the second web
material; and,

e) an operator interaction station positioned proximate to both
the first web converting station and the second web converting
station, the operator interaction station being capable of
enabling operator access and observation of both the first and
second web converting stations;

wherein at least one of said first width and said second width
ranges from about 200 cm to about 500 cm;

wherein the first and second web converting stations are
disposed such that the first web material is converted by the
first web converting station and the second web material is
converted by the second web converting station; and,

wherein a portion of the first web material disposed within the
first web converting station is disposed from a portion of the
second web material disposed within the second web
converting station at a distance that is less than twice the greater
of the first width and the second width.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hajek US 5,121,910 Jun. 16, 1992
Lamothe US 6,575,399 B1 Jun. 10, 2003

Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

4
The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lamothe.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hajek.

THE ISSUES
Appellant argues that Lamothe does not disclose a process for
converting web materials because Lamothe does not disclose
“transformative operations,” that is, does not disclose “converting multiple
web materials.” Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellant argues that Lamothe does
not disclose: (1) a first unwind station or a second unwind station; (2) a first
web converting station or a second web converting station; and (3) that the
distance between a portion of the first web material within the first
converting station and a portion of the second web material within the
second converting station is less than twice the greater of the first width and
the second width of the first web material and the second web material,
respectively. Br. 7.
Accordingly, the first issue presented for our consideration in the
instant appeal is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Lamothe discloses a transformative operation.
Appellant further argues that Hajek does not disclose an “operator
interaction station.” Br. 8. In response, the Examiner takes the position that
because Hajek discloses an operator side, then Hajek discloses an “operator
interaction station.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also takes the position that in
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

5
Hajek, the “operator interaction station” is located in “a space in-between
near 1a and 1b or 1c.” Ans. 7.
Hence, the second issue presented for our consideration in the instant
appeal is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Hajek discloses an “operator interaction station.”

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Lamothe discloses a paper web processing machine including
unwind machines 20a, 20b, 20c, a first printer 24a, 24b, 24c, a
second printer 32a, 32b, 32c, a folder 30a, 30b, 30c, and two
matrices 10. Lamothe, col. 3, l. 62 through col. 4, l. 2 and fig.
4A.
2. In addition to printers, Lamothe envisions other types of web
processing machines such as cutters, slitters, mergers, or
folders. Lamothe, col. 1, ll. 15-17.
3. Lamothe further discloses the desirability of arranging
processing equipment in a more compact floor layout.
Lamothe, col. 3, ll. 30-31 and col. 4, ll. 47-50.
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

6
4. Appellant’s Specification describes printing, embossing,
calendaring, laminating, folding, slitting, perforating, stacking,
and winding as “converting operations.” Spec. 4, ll. 25-27.
5. The Appellant’s Specification describes an operator interaction
station 400 that provides access for a process operator to the
first and second web converting stations 160, 260 so as to
observe the converting process and, if necessary, to correct
process faults. Spec. 8, ll. 5-9.
6. A customary and ordinary meaning of the term “interaction” is
“mutual or reciprocal action or influence.” MERRIAM
WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th Ed. 1997)
7. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that both
Lamothe and Hajek disclose the concept of arranging
equipment to save space. See Ans. 3, 5.
8. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to arrange the structure of Lamothe on which the Examiner
reads the claimed operator interaction station and the converting
stations to satisfy the claimed limitation of “a distance that is
less than twice the greater of the first width and the second
width.” See Ans. 4.
9. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
Lamothe discloses an operator interaction station located
between printers 32a, 32b. See Ans. 7.
10. Hajek discloses a printing machine system including web roll
changers 1a, 1b, 1c (unwind stations), webs 2a, 2b, 2c, printing
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

7
machine stations 3a, 3b, 3c, longitudinal slitters 5 for each web,
and folding apparatus 15. Hajek, col. 2, ll. 7-18 and fig. 1.

OPINION
Issue (1)
Appellant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) of claims 1-9
and 11-19 together as a group. Br. 6. Therefore, in accordance with 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009), we have selected claim 1 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal, with claims 2-9 and 11-19 standing or falling
with claim 1.
At the outset, Appellant specifically notes that a transformative
operation “provides that, ‘[t]he converted web material demonstrably differs
from the unconverted web material.’” Br. 8. Appellant further notes that
printing, embossing, calendaring, laminating, folding, slitting, perforating,
stacking, and winding, all constitute, “converting operations.” Id. See also,
FF 4.
It is our finding that Lamothe discloses a paper web processing
machine including unwind machines 20a, 20b, 20c, a first printer 24a, 24b,
24c, and a second printer 32a, 32b, 32c. FF 1. An example of the
Appellant’s converting operation is printing. FF 4. As such, in contrast to
Appellant’s position, we find that Lamothe specifically discloses (1) a first
unwind station 20a and a second unwind station 20b; and (2) a first web
converting station 24a, 32a and a second web converting station 24b, 32b.
Since the paper web processing machine of Lamothe includes a “converting
operation,” namely, printing, we find that Lamothe discloses a
“transformative operation.” Moreover, we note that like Appellant, Lamothe
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

8
also envisions other types of web processing machines such as “cutters,
slitters, mergers, or folders.” FF 2, 4.
Further, although we agree with Appellant that Lamothe does not
specifically disclose the limitation of “a distance that is less than twice the
greater of the first width and the second width,” as required by claim 1,
nonetheless, we find the argument unconvincing because it fails to address
the proposed rejection. The Examiner concedes that Lamothe fails to
disclose the above mentioned limitation. Ans. 4. Since Lamothe discloses
orienting processing equipment in a more compact floor layout (see FF 3),
the Examiner found that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to have arranged the operator interaction station and the
converting stations of Lamothe in order to save space such that “a portion of
a first web material disposed within the first web converting station is
disposed from a portion of a second web material disposed within the second
web converting station at a distance that is less than twice the greater of the
first width and the second width.” See Ans. 4. However, because Appellant
does not dispute the Examiner’s finding as to the disclosure of Lamothe nor
the conclusion of obviousness of the proposed modification (FF 7, 8),
Appellant’s argument fails to address the Examiner’s proposed rejection.
In conclusion, we agree with the Examiner that, “Lamothe ‘399
clearly shows a transformative operation.” Ans. 6. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-9 and 11-19 standing or falling with
claim 1, is sustained.
Issue (2)
We begin our analysis by construing the phrase “operator interaction
station.” Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

9
consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant’s Specification describes an operator interaction station 400 that
provides access for a process operator to the first and second web converting
stations 160, 260 so as to observe the converting process and, if necessary,
to correct process faults. FF 5. A customary and ordinary meaning of the
term “interaction” is “mutual or reciprocal action or influence.” FF 6. As
such, a reasonable interpretation of the phrase “operator interaction station,”
that is consistent with the specification, is a station where an operator can
influence the operation of a converting station. Hajek discloses a printing
machine system including web roll changers 1a, 1b, 1c (unwind stations),
webs 2a, 2b, 2c, printing machine stations 3a, 3b, 3c (converting station),
longitudinal slitters 5 for each web (converting station), and folding
apparatus 15 (converting station). FF 10.
First, we disagree with the Examiner’s position that the “operator
interaction station” is located in “a space in-between near 1a and 1b or 1c”
(Ans. 7) because this is a location proximate to the unwind stations and not
to the converting stations (longitudinal slitters 5), as required by claim 1.
Second, we disagree with the Examiner’s position that merely having access
to observe the machine of Hajek near longitudinal slitters 5 (operator side)
or printing machine stations 3a, 3b, 3c constitutes an “operator interaction
station” because such access does not necessarily include the ability to
influence the slitting process of Hajek. For example, just because an operator
has access to a side of the machine, does not mean that the same operator
can influence the printing or the slitting of webs 2a, 2b, 2c of Hajek, if the
Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

10
operator does not have access to the controls of the longitudinal slitters 5
(operator side) or the printing machine stations 3a, 3b, 3c.
In conclusion, we find that Hajek does not disclose an operator
interaction station, as called for in claim 1. Accordingly, Appellant has
established that the Examiner has not discharged the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 11 or their dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is
nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is
nonobvious). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that
Lamothe discloses a “transformative operation.”
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Hajek
discloses an “operator interaction station.”

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lamothe is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Hajek is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

Appeal 2009-005765
Application 10/880,698

11

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
GLOBAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT - IP
SYCAMORE BUILDING - 4TH FLOOR
299 EAST SIXTH STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202