Ex Parte Papsdorf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

13047418 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/047,418 03/14/2011
27752 7590 05/24/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Patent Services - Legal IP
Central Building, CS
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Clifford Theodore Papsdorf
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12039 6793
EXAMINER
RANDAZZO, THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIFFORD THEODORE PAPSDORF,
MICHAEL JOHN MERS-KELLY, and
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL RICHARDS
Appeal2014-004772
Application 13/04 7 ,418
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Clifford Theodore Papsdorf et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-16 and 20. 1 We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
1 Claims 1-7 and 17-19 have been cancelled. Ans. 2 (mailed on December
2, 2013).
Appeal2014-004772
Application 13/047,418
Appellants' invention "is generally directed to article feed systems for
aligning and singulating articles." Spec. 1, 11. 4--5.
Claims 8 and 13 are independent. Claim 8 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
8. A centrifugal article feed system for orienting and
aligning incoming articles, the centrifugal article feed system
compnsmg:
an outer bowl having an upper rim surface;
an inner disk disposed within the outer bowl and
extending at an incline from a lower portion of the outer bowl
upwardly adjacent the upper rim surface for delivering articles
from the lower portion of the outer bowl upwardly to the upper
rim surface;
a drive system operatively connected to the outer bowl
and the inner disk that rotates the outer bowl and the inner disk;
a guide wall extending upwardly above the upper rim
surface that guides the articles travelling along the upper rim
surface toward an end of the guide wall; and
a vertically oriented article engaging-type conveyor belt
that directiy receives the articles as the articles pass the end of
the guide wall;
wherein a distance between the guide wall and an inner
edge of the upper rim surface is substantially constant over an
article guide distance along which the articles travel on the
upper rim surface.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
McDonald
Schmitt
us 4,878,575
us 5,544,732
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Nov. 7, 1989
Aug. 13, 1996
I. Claims 8-11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Schmitt.
2
Appeal2014-004772
Application 13/047,418
II. Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmitt and McDonald.
III. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schmitt.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 8 recites, in part, a vertically oriented article engaging-type
conveyor belt that directly receives the articles as the articles pass the end of
the guide wall. In the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner relies on the
structure associated with Schmitt's reference numeral 50 as disclosing the
recited vertically oriented article engaging-type conveyor belt that directly
receives articles, and further relies on the discussion of discharging member
50 at Schmitt's column 3, lines 21-29, as well as Schmitt's Figures 2 and 3.
Final Act. 3. In the Answer, the Examiner states that "Schmitt's vacuum
conveyor [60] is configured substantiaiiy at an angie to a horizontai piane,"
and as such, "the Schmitt reference clearly anticipates the Appellants' claim
language with respect to a 'vertically oriented' vacuum conveyor belt." Ans.
8. The Examiner also states that "[r]eading the plain language of
Appellants' claim, Schmitt clearly discloses that the articles, after exiting the
guide wall, are directly deposited onto the vacuum conveyor belt," because
Schmitt's "discharge mechanism 50 is attached to the guide wall and assists
the articles in exiting the guide wall following which they are deposited
'directly' onto the article engaging-type conveyor belt." Id. at 8-9.
Appellants argue that Schmitt does not disclose a vertically oriented
article engaging-type conveyor belt, because Figure 2 of Schmitt "in fact
3
Appeal2014-004772
Application 13/047,418
teaches the exact opposite through employment of a horizontally oriented
conveyor belt 60." Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants on this point. Appellants explicitly disclose
that "[b ]y vertically oriented, it is meant that the conveying surface provided
by the discharge conveyor 40 is substantially at an angle (e.g., 90 degrees) to
a horizontal plane." Spec. 5, 11. 12-13. By contrast, Schmitt discloses "a
downward facing (conveying) portion of a suction conveyor 60" that is
parallel to a horizontal plane. Schmitt, col. 3, 1. 50; Figs. 2 and 3. A
conveying surface that is parallel to a horizontal plane does not correspond
to the recited vertically oriented conveyor belt stated by the Examiner. See
Ans. 8.
Appellants also argue that "[ d]irectly means without any intervening
mechanism-again, this is the exact opposite of 'via the Schmitt mechanism
50. ,,, B 5 r. .
We aiso agree with Appeiiants on this point. There is no conveyor
belt in Schmitt that "directly receives" an article as the article passes the end
of the guide wall. As to Schmitt's mechanism 50, this is a rotating disk,
specifically, a "beveled rotor" that rotates on rotary shaft 52. Schmitt, col. 3,
11. 21-22. As such, mechanism 50 is not an article engaging-type conveyor
belt. With respect to Schmitt's conveyor belt 60, Schmitt discloses that
"articles 5 are removed from the ledge 16 of the centrifugal drum 1 O" by
discharge of the articles 5 from the centrifugal drum due to the rotation of
the beveled rotor 51 (of discharging mechanism 50), and then "articles 5 are
transferred to a downward facing portion of a suction conveyor 60 which is
provided with a greater suction force than the suction force supplied to each
suction head 53 (of discharging mechanism 50)." Id. at col. 3, 11. 18-21 and
4
Appeal2014-004772
Application 13/047,418
11. 45-52. Removing articles 5 from guide wall 10, rotating the articles out
of the drum using discharging mechanism 50, and then transferring articles 5
from discharging mechanism 50 to conveyor 60, is not a direct transfer to a
conveyor as the articles pass an end of the guide wall. Specifically, the
Examiner's finding that Schmitt's discharge mechanism 50 assists the
articles in exiting the guide wall following which they are deposited
'directly' onto the article engaging-type conveyor belt renders meaningless
the term "directly." Accordingly, Schmitt does not anticipate claim 8.
Like claim 8, independent claim 13 recites, in part, "directly
transferring the articles from the upper rim surface through an exit opening
in the guide wall to a vertically oriented vacuum conveyor belt." Thus, the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13 suffers from the same deficiencies as the
rejection of claim 8.
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
8-11, 13, 14, and 16 as anticipated by Schmitt.
Rejections 11-111
The Examiner does not rely on the disclosure of McDonald in any
manner that would remedy the deficiencies of the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 13 as anticipated by Schmitt. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 12 and 15 as unpatentable over
Schmitt and McDonald. The rejection of dependent claim 20 as
unpatentable over Schmitt suffers from the same deficiencies as the
anticipation rejection of claims 8 and 13, and we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over Schmitt.
5
Appeal2014-004772
Application 13/047,418
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-16 and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6