Ex Parte Moulin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2013

11662106 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2013)

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.
11/662,106 09/13/2007 Pierre Moulin 15675P655 2214
7590 03/18/2013
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor&Zafman LLP
12400 Wilshire Boulevard 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
EXAMINER
SINGH, SUNIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3672
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PIERRE MOULIN, PIERRE LONGCHAMP,
MICHEL DE BROISSIA, and JEAN-NOEL DERYCKE
____________

Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pierre Moulin et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a method and a device to
continuously inform the driver of a tunneling machine equipped with a
rotary cutting head fitted with a multiplicity of drilling mountings for rotary
drilling cutters on the nature of the ground in front of the cutters.” Spec. 1,
ll. 5-9. Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
11. Process for providing continuous information on ground
conditions at the excavation face for the operator of a tunnel
boring machine equipped with a rotary cutting head
incorporating a multiplicity of individual mountings for rotary
boring cutters, in which data acquisition sensors capable of
generating signals concerning cutter operation are implemented,
these signals being remotely transmitted and used to inform the
tunnel boring machine operator, wherein a plurality of cutters
are equipped with a multiplicity of sensors selected from
sensors suitable for generating signals representing cutter
penetration force into the ground, cutter position, cutter
rotational state and cutter temperature, said sensors being
directly placed on each of said cutters, the signals from the
sensors being individually carried to a processing and display
unit in a driver's cab of the tunneling machine.
THE REJECTION1
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sackmann

1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sackmann and Wilson (US 4,181,360;
iss. Jan. 1, 1980). Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106

3
(US 4,079,795; iss. Mar. 21, 1978) and Hirsch (US 4,968,098; iss. Nov. 6,
1990).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Sackmann and Hirsch does
not render obvious the subject matter of claim 11 because the combined
teachings fail to disclose “placement of sensors directly on the cutters and
individually transmitting sensor signals to the driver’s cab.” Br. 7. The
Examiner relied on Hirsch to teach these claimed features. Ans. 4-5. In
particular, the Examiner found that Hirsch discloses sensors 40, 42, and 44
placed directly on cutters 26. Id. at 4 (citing Hirsch, fig. 3). The Examiner
also found that Hirsch discloses the signals from these sensors are
individually carried, via signal conductors 41, 43, 45, to a processing and
display unit in a driver’s cab of the tunneling machine. Ans. 4-5 (citing
Hirsch, figs. 3, 4).
Appellants also argue that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have combined the boring machine of Sackmann with the mining
machine[] of . . . Hirsch, because boring machines and mining machines are
distinctly different and could not be combined.” Br. 13. We address each
argument in turn.
Placement of sensors directly on the cutters
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hirsch discloses sensors
placed directly on the cutters. In particular, Hirsch discloses “one or more of
the cutters 26 is fitted with a vibration sensor in the form [of] a piezoelectric
accelerometer 40” and that accelerometer 40 is shown in Figure 3 being
Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106

4
“disposed within the cutting element 26 to minimize the prospect of damage
to the accelerometer.” Hirsch, col. 3, ll. 61-66; fig. 3. Hirsch also discloses:
[t]he cutter 26 is also preferably fitted with one or more
piezoelectric strain gauges 42 and 44 which may be disposed to
measure strains on the cutter in one or more planes for
determining the direction of the resultant load on the cutter as it
performs its cutting action against the coal face.
Id. at col. 3, l. 68 – col. 4, l. 5; fig. 3. Hirsch teaches that “[t]he strain
gauges 42 and 44 may also be imbedded in the body of the cutter 26 to
prevent damage thereto during operation.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 5-7. While
Hirsch discloses “an alternate arrangement” in which additional
accelerometers 70 and 72 are mounted on the support arm 22 and machine
frame 20, respectively, (id. at col. 5, ll. 9-24) these additional accelerometers
mounted elsewhere on the mining apparatus do not negate the fact that
Hirsch discloses sensors 40, 42, and 44 mounted on the cutter 26.
Individually transmitting sensor signals to the driver’s cab
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hirsch discloses
individually carrying the signals from sensors 40, 42, and 44, via signal
conductors 41, 43, 45, to a processing and display unit in a driver’s cab of
the tunneling machine. Hirsch discloses that “each of the sensors
comprising the accelerometer 40, and the strain gauges 42 and 44 includes a
signal conductor extending therefrom, respectively, and indicated in FIG. 3
by the numerals 41, 43, and 45.” Hirsch, col. 4, ll. 8-12. Hirsch discloses
that the signals from the sensors “are transmitted by way of their respective
conductors through a conventional multiconductor slipring assembly 52 to
the [signal-receiving, conditioning and amplification] circuit 50.” Id. at col.
Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106

5
4, ll. 21-25. Hirsch discloses that “a visual display 62 may also be provided
for receiving suitable output signals from the circuit 50 to indicate the stress
levels encountered by the cutters 26 and the vibrational characteristics
sensed by the accelerometer 40.” Id. at col. 4, l. 68 – col. 5, l. 4; fig. 4.
Hirsch describes the operator using the signals from these sensors
individually to make adjustments to the positioning of the machine. For
example, Hirsch discloses that “the direction of the relative stresses
indicated by the strain gauges 42 and 44 may . . . indicate an optimum angle
for the cutting plane of the drum 24 or an optimum cutting angle for the
cutters 26, which, in some instances may be adjustable relative to the plane
of rotation of the drum 24.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 55-60. Hirsch teaches that “by
shearing along the plane of the cleat, the stresses exerted on the apparatus 10
are reduced and the excavation rate for a given power input may be
increased.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 22-24. Hirsch also discloses that the amplitude
and frequency of vibration of the cutters 26 can be provided as an output
signal to the operator of the machine to indicate when the cutters are
penetrating material other than coal. Id. at col. 4, ll. 60-68. Hirsch teaches
that “the operator may adjust the height of the arm 22 or the advance
position of the machine 10 toward the face 13 as required to keep the cutter
drum 24 operable to cut only the coal material intended for excavation” to
achieve “greater production of cleaner coal . . . than relying solely on visual
inspection of the seam.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 32-37.
By describing that the direction of relative stresses indicated by the
strain gauges 42 and 44 may be used by the operator to determine an
Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106

6
optimum cutting angle for cutting through the plane of the cleat so as to
minimize stresses on the apparatus and the vibrational characteristics on the
cutter may be used by the operator to reposition the cutter head to stay
within the bedding surfaces, the Examiner’s finding that Hirsch discloses
individually carrying the signals from sensors 40, 42, and 44, via signal
conductors 41, 43, 45, to a processing and display unit in a driver’s cab of
the tunneling machine is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Combination of Sackmann and Hirsch
We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 14-15) that one of
ordinary skill in the art would apply the teachings of Hirsch to the boring
machine of Sackmann in light of Hirsch’s explicit disclosure that the
teachings of Hirsch can be implemented on boring type continuous miners.
Hirsch, col. 3, ll. 37-44.
As such, Appellants have failed to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 11 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention in view of Sackmann and Hirsch. We affirm the rejection of claim
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants rely on the same arguments raised
for claim 11 as the basis for reversal of the rejection of claims 12-20. Br. 13.
As such, we affirm the rejection of these claims for the same reasons
provided supra in our analysis of claim 11.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-20.
Appeal 2011-000268
Application 11/662,106

7
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