Ex Parte Papsdorf et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201613047418 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation