Ex Parte Pollock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2002

08923449 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2002)

1Appellant states on page 1 of the brief that the finally
rejected claims are “claims 1, 2, 8-22 and 24-37 (claim 23 having
erroneously not been submitted).” The appendix of claims on
appeal attached to appellant’s brief follows this claim
numbering. In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.126, claims 24-37
should be renumbered claims 23-36, respectively. In this
decision, in order to avoid confusion, we will follow the claim
numbering found in the aforementioned appendix of claims.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID CLARK POLLOCK
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FRANKFORT, STAAB, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
David Clark Pollack appeals from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8-22 and 24-37.1 Claims 3-7 have
been canceled.
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
2According to Webster’s II New Riverside University
Dictionary (copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company), the
word “signature” may mean “[a] large sheet printed with four or a
multiple of four pages that when folded becomes a section of [a]
book.”
2
Appellant’s invention pertains to an apparatus for
decelerating and shingling “signatures.”2 With reference to
appellant’s Figure 1, the apparatus includes a folder (2) for
folding a web (1), cutting cylinders (11.1, 11.2) for cutting the
web into individual signatures, and a tape system (20) comprising
first and second tapes or belts (23, 24) forming an arcuate path
for receiving the individual signatures, the tape system running
at a tape system speed greater than the web speed. The apparatus
further includes a first conveyor (30) having a first knock-down
wheel (31) downstream of the tape system for receiving signatures
from the tape system, the first conveyor running at a first
conveyor speed slower than the tape system speed thereby forming
the signatures into a first stream of shingled signatures
traveling at the first conveyor speed, and a second conveyor (33)
having a second knock-down wheel (34) downstream of the first
conveyor for receiving the first stream of shingled signatures,
the second conveyor running at a second conveyor speed slower
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
3While the examiner has not expressly repeated all of the
rejections applicable to the claims before us on appeal in the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 21), it is clear from a review of
the final rejection, appellant’s brief (Paper No. 20) and the
totality of the examiner’s answer that the rejections as stated
below are those that are before us for consideration on appeal.
We are at a loss to understand why all of the applicable prior
art references and rejections were not repeated in the examiner’s
answer. Normally, rejections of claims which are not repeated in
the answer are considered to have been withdrawn by the examiner.
See, for example, Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957). In the present case, we note that appellant’s grouping of
the claims as set forth on page 4 of the brief in no way relieves
the examiner of the obligation to expressly state in the answer
exactly what references and rejections are applicable to the
appealed claims.
3
than the first conveyor speed thereby forming the signatures into
a second stream of shingled signatures traveling at the second
conveyor speed.
A copy of the appealed claims is found in the appendix to
appellant’s brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Marschke 4,200,276 Apr. 29, 1980
Craemer et al. (Craemer) 4,240,856 Dec. 23, 1980
Jeschke et al. (Jeschke) 4,344,610 Aug. 17, 1982
Reponty 5,102,111 Apr. 7, 1992
The claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:3
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
4
(a) claims 1, 2, 8-19, 22, 24-33, 36 and 37, unpatentable
over Jeschke in view of Craemer and Marschke; and
(b) claims 1, 2, 8-22 and 24-37, unpatentable over Jeschke
in view of Craemer and Marschke, and further in view of Reponty.
Discussion
The claims on appeal include four independent claims.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a device for delivering
signature comprising, inter alia, a tape system running at a
first tape system speed greater that the web speed, a first
conveyor belt downstream of the tape system running at a first
conveyor speed slower that the tape system speed, and a second
conveyor belt downstream of the first conveyor belt running at a
second conveyor speed slower that the first conveyor speed.
Independent claim 36 contains limitations similar to those of
claim 1. Independent claim 2 is directed to a device for slowing
down signatures comprising, an arcuate tape system, a first
conveyor belt downstream of the tape system operating at a first
conveyor speed, and a second conveyor belt downstream of the
first conveyor belt operating at a second conveyor speed less
than the first conveyor speed. Independent claim 37 contains
limitations similar to those of claim 2.
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
5
Looking first at the rejection based on Jeschke in view of
Craemer and Marschke (rejection (a)), the examiner considers
(answer, page 1) that Jeschke discloses a device for cutting a
web into folded signatures which are later shingled, the device
comprising a web (1), a folder (2) for folding the web, a cutter
(11, 12) for converting the web into signatures, a tape system
for receiving the signatures, and a first conveyor (28) for
receiving signatures from the tape system, with the first
conveyor running at a speed slower than the tape system. The
examiner acknowledges (answer, pages 1-3) that Marschke does not
disclose (i) a first knock-down wheel for the first conveyor,
(ii) a second conveyor downstream of the first conveyor running
at a speed slower than the first conveyor, (iii) a second knock-
down wheel for the second conveyor, and (iv) the tape system
running at a speed greater than the web speed.
The examiner turns to Craemer for a teaching of deficiencies
(i), (ii) and (iii). According to the examiner:
Craemer discloses using two conveyor belts . . .
to shingle . . . sheets for the purpose of maintaining
the exit speed of the shingler constant while allowing
the processing speed of an upstream cutter and folder
to vary. As shown in Figure 2 of Craemer et al., the
speed of the second conveyor belt (28) is constant
while the speed of the first conveyor belt varies to
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
6
accommodate variations in the speed of upstream processing
devices (note cutters 18 whose speed is also shown in Figure
2). The knock-down wheels are provide above the conveyor
belts for the purpose of preventing a sheet leaving the tape
system from becoming airborne at high speeds . . . and
allowing for consistent shingling. [Answer, page 2.]
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to
provide Marschke with items (i), (ii), and (iii) in view of
Craemer.
The examiner turns to Marschke for a teaching of deficiency
(iv). In the examiner’s view, Marschke discloses
a cutting and shingling device in which webs
are cut, fed to [a] tape system running at
a faster speed than the web speed, and finally
shingled on a downstream conveyor. The tape
system speeds up the cut sheets in order to
separate the sheets from their abutting
relationship so that they are suitably spaced
apart for shingling . . . . [Answer, page 3.]
Based on this teaching, the examiner concludes that it also would
have been obvious to modify Jeschke by speeding up the tape
system as disclosed by Marschke in order to separate the sheets
from their abutting relationship so that they are suitably spaced
apart for shingling.
Because we do not agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to modify Jeschke by providing a second conveyor
belt downstream of Jeschke’s conveyor (28) traveling at a speed
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
7
slower than conveyor (28) based on the teachings of Craemer, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Jeschke is similar to appellant’s apparatus in that it
pertains to an apparatus for folding a paper web and cutting it
into individual copies that are then fed to a downstream
shingling conveyor. Of particular concern to Jeschke is the
configuration and operation of the cross cutting unit (11, 12),
the details of which are not pertinent to the obviousness issues
before us.
In contrast, Craemer pertains to an apparatus for making a
corrugated paperboard product. Craemer’s corrugator includes a
double facer machine (12), a shear knife (14), a slitter-scorer
(16), a cut-off (18), a downstream shingling conveyor comprising
a first conveyor (26) and a second conveyor (28), and a sheet
stacker (not shown), in that order. In the “BACKGROUND” section
of the specification, Craemer describes a deficiency of prior art
corrugators as follows:
Upon completion of one production order, it is
conventional to sever the web and create a large gap to
thereby facilitate adjustments of the slitter-scorer
and/or cut-off. The gap is conventionally attained by
substantially decreasing the speed of the double facer
machine while the web section is processed at the
previous speed of the double facer machine. . . .
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
8
During any given day, the production order
changeover may occur as often as 6 to 7 times. The
repetitive acceleration and deceleration of the speed
of the double facer machine over a wide speed range
with its attendant corresponding changes on the
apparatus for controlling transfer of heat to the web
is considered to be undesirable from a quality
standpoint. More uniform quality is attained if the
double facer machine speed remains at a constant.
[Column 1, lines 10-27.]
It is therefore an objective of Craemer
[to create] a gap in a paperboard web which minimizes
one operating characteristic which has a tendency to
affect quality [i.e., repetitive acceleration and
deceleration of the double facer machine] while at the
same time assuring that a gap will be maintained
between shingled sheets of one production order and
shingled sheets of the next production order. [Column
2, lines 37-42.]
Craemer’s method of providing a gap between production
orders is accomplished
by increasing the speed of the shingling conveyor to a
second substantially higher speed prior to the last
sheet of the web section being deposited on the
shingling conveyor. When the first sheet of the new
production order is deposited on the shingling
conveyor, the speed of the shingling conveyor is
decreased from said second speed to said first speed
thereby maintaining a gap on the shingling conveyor
between the sheets of the old production order and the
next production order. [Column 2, lines 21-30.]
In addition, the slitter-scorer (16) and cut-off (18)
located downstream of the double facer (12) may be adjusted at
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
9
this time between production orders while they are temporarily
disposed within the gap (column 2, lines 14-17).
The specifics of Craemer’s method are depicted in Figure 2,
where it is seen that when it is desired to create a temporary
gap in a stream of paperboard products, the speed of the first
conveyor (26) of the corrugator is gradually ramped up from its
normal operating speed of about 10% of the speed of the double
facer (12) to a speed of about 50% of the speed of the double
facer (to create the gap), then held at that speed for a short
while, and then decreased back to its normal speed of about 10%
of the speed of the double facer (12). It can also be seen in
Figure 2 that while this occurs, the speed of the double facer
(12) and second conveyor (28) remain constant.
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s position is that
we see no cogent reason for providing a second downstream
conveyor in Jeschke and operating it in a manner which would
satisfy the claim requirement that the second downstream conveyor
runs at a slower speed then the first upstream conveyor based on
the teachings of Craemer. In this regard, the purpose for which
Craemer’s conveyors are provided and the way they operate is to
create a gap between production runs while permitting the
upstream double facer to run at a constant speed without
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
10
accelerating or decelerating. The examiner has not established,
and it is not apparent to us, that holding the speed of any of
Jeschke’s upstream units is a matter of concern. Accordingly,
there does not appear to be any reason, aside from the hindsight
knowledge afforded one who first reads appellant’s disclosure,
for providing items (ii) and (iii) in Jeschke based on the
teaching of Craemer. Because the Marschke reference additionally
relied upon in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-19, 22, 24-33, 36
and 37 does not make up for the deficiencies of Jeschke and
Craemer in this regard, the rejection of these claims based on
Jeschke, Craemer and Marschke cannot be sustained.
As to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-22 and 24-37 based on
Jeschke in view of Craemer and Marschke and further in view of
Reponty (rejection (b)), we have reviewed the Reponty reference
additionally relied upon and find that it does not remedy the
deficiencies of Jeschke, Craemer and Marschke noted above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-22 and 24-37 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jeschke,
Craemer, Marschke and Reponty also cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
11
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS:hh
Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
12
KENYON & KENYON
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004