Ex Parte Redmer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 1, 2011

11643367 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 1, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/643,367 12/20/2006 Claus-Dieter Redmer 06-723 3095
34704 7590 07/01/2011
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLAUS-DIETER REDMER, EBERHARD KRIEGER, and
HAGEN WETZEL
____________

Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, LINDA E. HORNER, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claus-Dieter Redmer et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a folding device for
forming a folding line in a sheet. Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A folding device comprising a sheet transporting device
for transporting sheets in a sheet support plane and a stationary
folding knife arranged opposite said sheet support plane in a
sheet running direction, said folding knife comprising, at a side
facing said sheet support plane, folding edge means contacting
a sheet during a transport for forming a folding line in said
sheet, wherein said folding edge means comprises several
folding rollers being arranged one after the other in said sheet
running direction and each being supported rotatably about a
rotation axis extending perpendicularly to said sheet running
direction.

THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA)
1
and Ishii (US 5,137,505; issued August 11, 1992).

1
The Examiner identifies the AAPA as being the prior art described in page
1 of Appellants’ Specification and shown in Figures 1 and 2. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367

3
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner found that the AAPA discloses the claimed folding
device except for the claimed folding edge means comprising several folding
rollers arranged one after the other in the sheet running direction and each
being supported rotatably about a rotation axis extending perpendicularly to
the sheet running direction. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Ishii discloses
this folding edge means having the claimed folding rollers (pressing rollers
51 and creasing rollers 52 of Ishii) and that it would have been obvious to
modify the AAPA with the folding rollers of Ishii “in order to fold the sides
of the bag easily and change the bag width in shorter time.” Id.
Appellants contend that “[a] folding knife as claimed sets forth a
specific combination of elements for folding a sheet about folding line
formed by a folding edge means of the folding knife and folding about the
folding line by a plurality of folding rollers arranged one behind another.”
Br. 11. Appellants contend that Ishii’s pressing rollers 51 and creasing
rollers 52 are not the claimed folding rollers. Br. 10-11.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Ishii discloses the
folding rollers as called for in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a folding device comprising a sheet
transporting device for transporting sheets in a sheet support plane and a
stationary folding knife “arranged opposite said sheet support plane.”
Claim 1 defines the folding knife as having “folding edge means” disposed
Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367

4
“at a side facing said sheet support plane.” The folding edge means perform
the function of “contacting a sheet during a transport for forming a folding
line in said sheet.”
When a claim uses the term “means” to describe a limitation, a
presumption inheres that the inventor used the term to invoke 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2003). “This presumption can be rebutted when the claim, in
addition to the functional language, recites structure sufficient to perform the
claimed function in its entirety.” Id. (citation omitted).
Claim 1 recites structure for the folding edge means sufficient to
perform the above-identified claimed function in its entirety. In particular,
claim 1 recites that the “folding edge means comprises several folding
rollers being arranged one after the other in said sheet running direction and
each being supported rotatably about a rotation axis extending
perpendicularly to said sheet running direction.” These folding rollers are
sufficient to contact the sheet during transport and form a folding line in the
sheet. See Spec. 5, para. [0021] (“The distance between the outer
circumference of the folding rollers 30 and the upper strand 39 of the
transport belt 38 is dimensioned such that through the folding rollers 30
during the passage of the sheets 22a, 22b a folding line having a desired
depth is formed by the apex 51 of the folding rollers 30 in the sheet 22a,
22b.”) As such, 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is not invoked by claim 1.
In light of the language of claim 1, we construe claim 1 to call for a
stationary folding knife to be comprised of a plurality of folding rollers
Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367

5
being arranged one after the other in said sheet running direction and each
being supported rotatably about a rotation axis extending perpendicularly to
said sheet running direction, such that the rollers are capable of contacting
the sheet and forming a folding line in the sheet. We also construe claim 1
to call for the folding edge means (i.e., the folding rollers) to be disposed “at
a side facing said sheet support plane” and to call for the stationary folding
knife, formed by the folding rollers, to be “arranged opposite said sheet
support plane.”
Ishii discloses a conventional bag-making apparatus for making a
gusset bag. Ishii, col. 1, ll. 58-59; figs 12-14. This apparatus includes a
forming plate 49, guide bars 50 disposed on both sides in the cross direction
of the forming plate 49, pressing rollers 51 disposed on the forming plate 49
in the traveling direction of the bag material 48, and creasing rollers 52
disposed on both sides of the forming plate 49 perpendicular to the pressing
rollers 51. Ishii, col. 1, ll. 59-67; figs. 12, 13. Ishii discloses that “[t]he
guide bars 50 fold the bag material 48 so as to lap the forming plate 49,”
“[t]he pressing rollers 51 press the bag material formed tubular on the
forming plate 49,” and “[t]he creasing rollers 52 form a crease by pressing
on the central portion of each side of the bag material 48 formed tubular by
the forming plate 49 and the guide bars 50.” Ishii, col. 2, ll. 5-12.
We find that Ishii’s creasing rollers 52 are arranged one after the other
in the sheet running direction (i.e., the traveling direction of the bag material
48). Ishii, fig. 12 (showing the rollers 52 arranged in a line in the same
direction as the traveling direction of bag material 48). We further find that
Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367

6
Ishii’s creasing rollers 52 are each supported rotatably about a rotation axis
extending perpendicularly to the sheet running direction. Ishii, fig. 12
(showing the rotation axis of rollers 52 disposed vertically and perpendicular
to the horizontal traveling direction of the bag material 48). We further find
that Ishii’s creasing rollers 52 are disposed such that they contact the sides of
the formed bag to form a folding line in the side of the bag. Ishii, fig. 13
(showing creasing rollers 52 in contact with bag material 48 and forming a
folding line or crease in the bag material). We do not find, however, any
discussion in the Examiner’s rejection sufficient to support a finding that
Ishii’s creasing rollers 52 are disposed “at a side facing said sheet support
plane” such that the stationary folding knife is “arranged opposite said sheet
support plane.”
To the extent the Examiner relied on Ishii’s pressing rollers 51 as the
claimed folding rollers, we find that Ishii’s pressing rollers 51 are not
capable of forming a folding line in the sheet, as called for in claim 1.
Rather, Ishii discloses that the guide bars 50 fold the bag material 48 and the
pressing rollers 51 merely press the bag material formed tubular on the
forming plate 49. Thus, neither Ishii’s pressing rollers 51 nor Ishii’s
creasing rollers 52 satisfy the folding rollers limitation of claim 1. The
rejection of claims 2-4 suffers from the same deficiency by virtue of the
dependency of claims 2-4 from claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Ishii does not disclose the folding rollers as called for in claim 1.
Appeal 2009-012645
Application 11/643,367

7
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

nlk