Ex Parte Ong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2013

11848968 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HENSON C. ONG
____________

Appeal 2011-000204
Application 11/848,968
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Henson C. Ong (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6. Claims 7-21 have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-000204
Application 11/848,968

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “an apparatus for providing equal
access to dual face surfaces of a sheet/mailpiece for printing/scanning on
each side thereof.” Spec., para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the
sole independent claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A sheet handling apparatus for conveying sheet material
along a feed path, comprising,
first and second conveyor modules, each module having
conveyor surfaces for driving the sheet material along the feed
path, the conveyor surfaces being arranged such that an end
portion of one conveyor surface opposes the other conveyor
surface along a face-to-face interface,
a means for developing a pressure differential across the
conveyor surfaces of the first and second conveyor modules to
hold the sheet material on the conveyor surfaces and transfer
the sheet material across the modules during transport; and
a processor operative to independently control the
pressure differential means such that sheet material is held
against the conveyor surfaces by a negative pressure differential
developed across the conveyor surface during transport, and
transferred from one conveyor surface to the other by
controlling the pressure differential of both modules when the
sheet material is interposed between the face-to-face interface.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Gumm US 4,087,177 May 2, 1978
Smith US 5,074,547 Dec. 24, 1991
Becker US 6,581,517 B1 Jun. 24, 2003
Mayerberg US 7,014,187 B2 Mar. 21, 2006
Appeal 2011-000204
Application 11/848,968

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Becker;
2. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker and
Smith;
3. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker and
Mayerberg; and
4. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker and
Gumm.
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues the claims subject to the first ground of rejection
(claims 1, 3, and 5) as a group. Br. 10-12. We select claim 1 as
representative, and claims 3 and 5 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellant relies solely on the arguments
presented for reversing the rejection of claim 1 as the basis for reversing the
remaining grounds of rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 based on
Becker in view of one of Smith, Mayerberg, and Gumm. Br. 12-13. As
such, the outcome of this appeal turns on our analysis of the first ground of
rejection as applied to claim 1.
ANALYSIS
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner found that Becker discloses a
first conveyor module (printing cylinder 1) having a suction/blast air source
and a second conveyor module (reversing drum 14) having a suction gripper,
Appeal 2011-000204
Application 11/848,968

4
and teaches that suction “may be applied to drum 14 and blast air may be
applied to drum 1 (surface 18) such as to aid the gripper in detaching the
sheet from drum 1 (surface 18).” Ans. 7-8 (citing Becker, col. 6, ll. 12-14
and col. 8, l. 64 – col. 9, l. 10). The Examiner also determined:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the applicant’s invention to include a means for
developing a pressure differential [to transfer the sheet material
across the modules during transport] as there is already suction
disclosed on [reversing drum] 14, for the purpose of holding a
sheet.
Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Becker “does not disclose that a pressure
differential, or source of suction/blast air, is used by, or for, the second
conveyor (14) to release or transfer a sheet (16) from the print-machine
cylinder (1) to the second conveyor (14).” Br. 11. In particular, Appellant
contends that “[t]he only reference to the use of suction/blast air to produce a
pressure differential is in connection with the print-machine cylinder (1)”
and “the only device disclosed to transfer a sheet (16) from the print
machine cylinder (1) to the reversing or turning drum (14) is a non-
illustrated gripper device . . . .” Id.
We disagree with Appellant’s assertion that Becker does not disclose
using suction air to produce a pressure differential in connection with the
reversing drum 14. Indeed, Becker discloses that the reversing drum 14 has
“an otherwise unidentified suction gripper and an accepting or take-over
gripper.” Becker, col. 6, ll. 11-14. We understand the suction gripper on
Becker’s reversing drum 14 to be used to grip the sheet via application of a
Appeal 2011-000204
Application 11/848,968

5
negative pressure differential (i.e., suction). We find the Examiner’s
determination (Ans. 7-8) that Becker discloses a suction gripper on the
reversing drum that develops a pressure differential to hold the sheet
material on the conveyor surface and transfer the sheet material across the
modules during transport to be reasonable in light of the description in
col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 10 of Becker. Because Appellant’s arguments
fail to acknowledge that Becker’s reversing drum 14 includes a suction
gripper, Appellant’s arguments fail to persuasively rebut this finding by the
Examiner.
Appellant also argues that Becker “does not teach a pair of oppose[d]
conveyor modules which include a pressure differential means across the
conveyor surfaces of the first and second conveyor modules to (i) hold the
sheet material on the conveyor surfaces during transport and (ii) transfer the
sheet material across the modules” and argues that because Becker teaches
use of a mechanical gripper for removing sheets from the cylinder, it
“teaches away” from the use of pneumatic conveyance modules and method
of control to transfer sheet material from one module to another. Br. 11-12.
These arguments are premised on the same unfounded position that the only
reference to the use of suction/blast air to produce a pressure differential is
in connection with cylinder 1 and that Becker discloses only a mechanical
gripper device for use with drum 14. For the reasons provided supra, we
disagree with Appellant’s reading of Becker. As such, Appellant fails to
persuasively rebut the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims
Appeal 2011-000204
Application 11/848,968

6
3 and 5 fall with claim. Appellant likewise fails to persuasively rebut the
rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6.
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