Ex Parte Roeckle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

13576695 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)

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.
13/576,695 01/18/2013 Juergen Roeckle OST-121111 6246
22876 7590 07/27/2017
FACTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, LTD.
1327 W. WASHINGTON BLVD.
SUITE 5G/H
CHICAGO, IL 60607
EXAMINER
LE, MARK T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2017 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):
jmerritt@factoriplg.com
ysolis @factoriplg.com
c schroeder @ factoriplg .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUERGEN ROECKLE
Appeal 2017-000961
Application 13/576,695
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—12, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
propelling automated or robotic swimming pool and tank cleaners
employing water jet propulsion. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
exemplary:
Appeal 2017-000961
Application 13/576,695
1. A conveyor system for transporting articles, comprising:
a rail system which includes a plurality of line sections;
at least one set of points by means of which, via a points drive,
a first line section is connectable to either a second line section or a
third line section;
at least one drivable transport carriage which is movable along
a movement path on the rail system;
a communication system which includes at least one
communication line that extends along the movement path; and,
a carriage communication unit which is arranged on the at least
one drivable transport carriage and which cooperates with the at least
one communication line, and wherein the points drive may be
triggered by means of a points controller which is connected to the at
least one communication line.
References and Rejections
Modery US 4,766,547 Aug. 23, 1988
Claims 1—2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Modery.
Claims 3, 7—9 and 11—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Modery.
Claims 4, 5, 61, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Modery and known devices described in the Specification.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the Office Action from which
1 The Examiner groups the rejection of claim 6 with claim 4 in response to
Appellant’s statement about claim 6. See Ans. 2—3; App. Br. 11.
2
Appeal 2017-000961
Application 13/576,695
this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with
our analysis below.2
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
First, Appellant contends Modery does not disclose “a points
controller which is connected to the at least one communication line,” as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9—10. In particular, Appellant asserts
Modery’s switch control 76 is not connected to communication bus 57.
App. Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument is not directed to the Examiner’s specific
mapping. The Examiner maps the claimed “at least one communication
line” to Modery’s communication bus 57, and the claimed “points
controller” to Modery’s block control computer (BCC) 66—not switch
control 76, as Appellant asserts. The Examiner finds—and Appellant does
not dispute—Modery’s BCC 66 is connected to communication bus 57. See
Final Act. 2; Ans. 2; Modery, Fig. 6 (showing BCC 66 is connected to
communication bus 57), Fig. 10 (identifying communication bus 57).
Second, Appellant contends:
in order to disclose each and every element of claim 1, a system
much teach at least one communication line connected to both
the carriage communication unit (i.e. the at least one drivable
carriage), and the points controller.
App. Br. 9-10.
The above argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, as the claim recites “a carriage communication unit which is
arranged on the at least one drivable transport carriage and which
2 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2017-000961
Application 13/576,695
cooperates with the at least one communication line, and wherein the
points drive may be triggered by means of a points controller which is
connected to the at least one communication line” (emphasis added).
Further, the Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—
Modery discloses “a carriage communication unit which is arranged
on the at least one drivable transport carriage and which cooperates
with the at least one communication line.” See Final Act. 2.
Third, Appellant contends:
By utilizing a common communications line, the present
invention substantially simplifies a complex system like
Modery in order to control both any transport carriages in a
conveyor system, and any points or switch controllers which
are used to control the configuration and connections of any
line sections formed within the conveyor system. Modery
instead only teaches or suggests the usage of a complex
electrical system to connect the switch controller, BCC, and
switches.
App. Br. 10-11.
The above argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, as Appellant has not shown where and how the claim requires
the features argued by Appellant.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments
about that claim.
4
Appeal 2017-000961
Application 13/576,695
Obviousness
Regarding dependent claims 3—12, Appellant argues they are
patentable “[i]n view of the above arguments regarding claim 1.” App. Br.
11—12. As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments about claim 1 are
unpersuasive. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 3—12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5