Ex Parte RoeckleDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201713576695 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation