Ex Parte Opfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2013

12207194 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHAMAI OPFER, AVI NAMER, and EYAL PELEG
____________

Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shamai Opfer, Avi Namer, and Eyal Peleg (“Appellants”) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 11 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced
below.
1. A turn-bar for adjusting orientation of a web
comprising:
a plurality of roll bars;
wherein positions of at least two bars of said plurality of
roll bars are movable with respect to a direction of travel of said
web through said turn-bar; and
wherein an orientation of said web passing through said
plurality of bars is changed by adjusting said positions of said at
least two bars without removal of said web from said turn-bar,
such that, when the two bars that are movable with
respect to the direction of travel of the web are in a first
position, the web passes through said turn-bar without being
inverted such that a same side of the web faces a first direction
both before and after the web passes through the turn-bar, and
when the two bars that are movable with respect to the
direction of travel of the web are in a second position, the web
is inverted such that a first side of the web faces said first
direction before the web enters the turn-bar and a second side of
the web faces said first direction when the web exits the turn-
bar.
11. A method of selectively inverting or not inverting
a web comprising changing a position of at least two roll bars
of a turn-bar apparatus with respect to a direction of travel of
said web through said turn-bar apparatus, wherein said web is
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

3
not inverted by passing through said turn-bar apparatus when
said at least two roll bars are in a first position, and said web is
inverted by passing through said tum-bar apparatus when said
at least two roll bars are in a second position.
App. Br. 20, 22 (Claims App’x, Claims 1, 11).
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Kohler US 4,863,087 Sept. 5, 1989
Hansen US 5,464,143 Nov. 7, 1995
Michalik US 6,047,922 Apr. 11, 2000
Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kohler;
II. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kohler1 and Hansen; and
III. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kohler and Michalik.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 The Examiner acknowledges that the Final Office Action indicated in the
heading that claim 9 was rejected as unpatentable over “Ohno” and Hansen.
Ans. 9; see Final Office Action (mailed May 11, 2010) at 4. The Examiner
notes, however, that the text of the rejection in the Final Office Action cited
to “Kohler” and Hansen and did not refer to Ohno. Ans. 9. Appellants
indicate that “this rejection should have applied Kohler rather than Ohno.”
App. Br. 17. Accordingly, because Appellants and the Examiner understand
that Rejection II is based upon Kohler and Hansen, we treat it as such.
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

4
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner found that Kohler discloses each and every limitation
of claims 1-8 and 11-19. Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner found that
Kohler discloses a turn-bar for adjusting orientation of a web including the
ability to change the orientation of the web passing through the plurality of
bars by adjusting the positions of the bars without removal of the web from
the turn-bar. Id. at 4 (citing Kohler, col. 4, l. 4 – col. 6, l. 39). The
Examiner also found that Kohler’s turn-bar is movable such that the web-
facing direction satisfies the latter elements of the claim. See id.
Claim 1
Appellants assert that Kohler does not anticipate claim 1 because it
does not disclose a turn-bar “wherein an orientation of said web passing
through said plurality of [roll] bars is changed by adjusting said positions of
said at least two [roll] bars without removal of said web from said turn-bar.”
App. Br. 10-13.
The Examiner relied upon Kohler’s disclosure of a “running web
adjustable guide apparatus . . . [where] lateral adjustment of the web can be
accomplished without changing the length of the path of the web through the
apparatus” to discount Appellants’ argument that the web is removed from
Kohler’s apparatus before adjusting the positions of at least two of the bars
to change the orientation of the web. Ans. 7 (citing Kohler, Abstract; id. at
col. 2, ll. 30-35, col. 2, l. 30 – col. 3, l. 5). Further, the Examiner rejected
Appellants’ arguments regarding Figures 8-11 of Kohler because the
Examiner considered the figures to disclose “one apparatus that is capable of
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

5
different set-ups by movement by the roller bar 21 and angle bar 14.” Ans. 8
(citation omitted).
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
involves two analytical steps. First, we interpret the claim language, where
necessary, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Second, we compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make
factual findings to determine whether “each and every limitation is found
either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference.” Id.
(citation omitted). The elements in the reference “must be arranged as in the
claim . . . but this is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Further, an Examiner’s
factual finding regarding what a reference discloses must be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met
by the PTO in making rejections”); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Plager, J., concurring) (“In rejecting an application,
factual determinations by the PTO must be based on a preponderance of the
evidence, and legal conclusions must be correct.”) (citation omitted).
Claim 1 is directed to a “turn-bar for adjusting orientation of a web”
comprising a plurality of roll bars, wherein “an orientation of said web
passing through said plurality of bars is changed by adjusting said positions
of said at least two bars without removal of said web from said turn-bar.”
App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x, Claim 1). The claim further explains what is
meant by changing the “orientation of said web” by indicating “such that” a
first position of the two bars results in the web passing through without
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

6
being inverted, whereas a second position of the two bars results in an
inverted web. Id. The Specification indicates that during printing it may be
desired to switch between double-sided and single-sided modes of printing
on a single print job or a single web. Spec., para. [0016]. One way of
accomplishing the switch is to cut the web, rethread it through the turn-bar
mechanism, and splice it back together, which can take considerable time
and may result in the splice ripping during subsequent printing. Id. Thus,
the Specification explains that the invention claimed here can accomplish
this switch without the need to cut and splice the web. See id. at para.
[0051]; see also figs. 1-3 (illustrating, inter alia, the adjustment of the turn
bars to invert a web without removing, cutting, and splicing the web).
Kohler discloses “a running web adjustable guide apparatus . . . in
which substantial lateral adjustment of the web can be accomplished
without changing the length of the path of the web through the apparatus.”
Kohler, Abstract (emphasis added). Kohler also discloses that “[v]arious
set-ups are possible . . . so that the direction of the web can be changed as it
moves through the apparatus or maintained constant. Further, in some set-
ups the web is inverted. In other set-ups, the web is not inverted.” Id.
Kohler’s Figures 8-11 illustrate the various “set-ups” and the lateral
adjustment of the web in each set-up. See Kohler, figs. 8-11; col. 6, ll.
40-45; col. 7 l. 68 – col. 8, l. 1; col. 8, ll. 34-34; col. 9, l. 1; col. 9, ll. 6-8;
col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 2 (“Further, with the present invention, appropriate
vertical positions of the various rollers and guide bars in the apparatus
permits the use of the apparatus in a large variety of set-ups so that the
apparatus can be used in any one of a large variety of installations.”).
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

7
We agree with the Examiner that Figures 8-11 illustrate various set-
ups of Kohler’s apparatus, and that depending upon which set-up is chosen,
the web may be inverted or not inverted. We do not agree with the
Examiner, however, that Kohler discloses that the apparatus may change
from one set-up to another, and in particular, from a set-up wherein the web
is inverted to a set-up where the web is not inverted, or vice versa, without
removing the web from the turn-bar. Despite the Examiner’s apparent
reliance upon column 4, line 4, through column 6, line 39 (see Ans. 4), we
do not see anything in Kohler specifically suggesting that in changing set-
ups, the web remains on the turn-bar. We emphasize this portion because
we acknowledge that Kohler discloses that once a particular set-up is
chosen, the apparatus disclosed permits lateral adjustment of a running (i.e.,
continuous) web. Lateral adjustment, as reflected in Figures 8-11, is not
changing a web’s orientation by inverting as called for by claim 1.
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Kohler discloses changing the orientation
of the web without removal of said web from said turn-bar, we do not
sustain Rejection I as applied to claim 1 and claims 2-8, 16, and 17, which
depend therefrom.
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Appellants reiterate that Kohler fails to
teach the claimed method. App. Br. 13-14. Appellants contend that Kohler
does not anticipate claim 11 because it “only teaches an ‘actuator . . . [that]
operates to move the movable guide bar 14 and the roller assembly 19 to
establish the desired lateral position of the web leaving the apparatus.’” Id.
at 14 (citation omitted).
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

8
Claim 11 is directed to a method of selectively inverting or not
inverting a web comprising changing a position of at least two roll bars
wherein the web results in an inverted or a not inverted position. See App.
Br. 22 (Claims App’x, Claim 11). Claim 11, however, does not include the
requirement that the method be carried out without removal of the web from
the turn bar. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kohler’s
various set-ups for its apparatus, wherein by changing the position of at least
two of the roll bars results in either an inverted or a not inverted web
position, discloses the elements of claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I as applied to claim 11 and claims
12 and 13, which depend therefrom and for which Appellants have not
offered separate argument.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Appellants reiterate the arguments raised
with respect to claims 1 and 11. See id. at 15-16.
Claim 14 is directed to a web press system, which includes the same
requirement that the orientation of the web passing through the turn bar is
changed by adjusting the position of two turn bars without removal of said
web from said turn-bar. See App. Br. 22-23 (Claims App’x, Claim 14).
Accordingly, for the reasons we explained in the context of claim 1, we do
not sustain Rejection I as applied to claim 14 and claims 15, 18, and 19,
which depend therefrom.
Appeal 2011-006701
Application 12/207,194

9
Rejections II and III
The Examiner concluded that the combination of Kohler and Hansen
would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claim 9 (Rejection II),
and the combination of Kohler and Michalik would have rendered obvious
the subject matter of claim 10 (Rejection III). Ans. 6-7. Rejections II and
III rely upon the same findings with respect to Kohler as reflected in
Rejection I. See id. Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1 and thus also call
for changing the orientation of the web without removal of said web from
said turn-bar.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejections II and III for the same
reasons we discussed in addressing the rejection of claim 1 in the context of
Rejection I.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, and 13.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 14-19.
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-IN-PART

mls