Ex Parte Merin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2012

11245271 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER MERIN, PERTTI HELLGREN,
and JARI REHU
____________________

Appeal 2010-005869
Application 11/245,271
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005869
Application 11/245,271

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Seaberg (US 5,417,464; iss.
May 23, 1995). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method and an apparatus
for handling loads, especially easily damageable goods, like
paper rolls or household appliances, with a gripper provided
with arms capable of clamping the load by applying a
compressive force to the load wherein the compressive force is
adjusted on the basis of the slippage measured with slip sensors
between the load and the contact pads attached to the arms.
Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Independent claims 18 and 27 are the only claims on
appeal, and claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
18. A method of monitoring a compressive force on goods, the
method comprising:
providing drive signals to at least one drive unit arranged
to rotate at least one rotatable sensor included in arms used to
apply a compressive force to the goods;
monitoring the at least one rotatable sensor to determine
whether or not the at least one rotatable sensor is rotating; and
determining at least one of a proper operation of the at
least one rotatable sensor and a proper contact between contact
pads of the arms and the goods based on the monitoring step.

Appeal 2010-005869
Application 11/245,271

3
OPINION
Independent method claim 18 recites that the at least one drive unit is
“arranged to rotate at least one rotatable sensor included in arms used to
apply a compressive force to the goods.” Similarly, independent claim 27 is
directed to an apparatus that includes, “at least one drive unit arranged to
rotate the at least one sensor.” Appellants present a single argument for
independent claims 18 and 27 without distinguishing between the claims,
and therefore our analysis of claim 18 is applicable to claim 27. See Br. 3-5.
It is uncontested that Seaberg discloses a load clamping system having
drive units (hydraulic cylinders 30, 32) that include arms (arms 20, 22) used
to apply a compressive force to goods. Ans. 3; Br. 3; Seaberg, col. 5, ll. 16-
21; fig. 2. Further, it is uncontested that as Seaberg’s drive units (hydraulic
cylinders 30, 32) apply a compressive force to goods via the arms (arms 20,
22), roller 1241 contacts the surface of the goods, causing a small amount of
rotation of roller 124 that tests the operability of the slip sensing system.
Ans. 3; Br. 3-4; Seaberg, col. 10, l. 45-col. 11, l. 28; figs. 5A, 8.
Rather, the dispute in this case is whether such disclosure corresponds
to at least one drive unit arranged to rotate at least one rotatable sensor as
called for in claim 18. See Br. 4; Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that Seaberg’s drive units (hydraulic cylinders 30,
32) rotate the arms, but that the rotatable sensor (roller 124) is rotated by
contact with the goods. Br. 4. Appellants’ argument is not accompanied by
an explicit claim construction. Br. 3-4.

1 Seaberg’s roller 124 is part of a rotatable sensor as claimed in that
incremental optical encoder 136 measures rotation of roller 124 about a
horizontal axis (flexible connector 134). See Seaberg, col. 8, l. 67-col. 9, l.
6; figs. 1, 2, 7, 8.
Appeal 2010-005869
Application 11/245,271

4
The Examiner acknowledges that Seaberg’s rotatable sensor (roller
124) is rotated, in part, by contact with the goods, but contends that claim 18
does not preclude such an interpretation. Ans. 4. For the reasons that
follow, we agree with the Examiner.
As the Examiner correctly points out, claim 18 does not require a
specific linkage between the drive unit and the rotatable sensor. See Ans. 4.
Further, claim 18 utilizes the open-ended term “comprising,” so that
additional unrecited steps, such as contact of the rotatable sensor with an
object, are within the scope of the claim. Cf. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron
Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, Appellants’ argument
is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 18. See
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 27.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Seaberg.
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).

AFFIRMED

hh