12288070 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2013)

Ex Parte Sandahl

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 18, 2013

12288070 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/288,070 10/16/2008 Kyle Albert Sandahl 6003.1120 2548 23280 7590 07/18/2013 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 485 7th Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/18/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KYLE ALBERT SANDAHL ____________________ Appeal 2011-007694 Application 12/288,070 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007694 Application 12/288,070 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-11, and 13-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A printing press folder comprising: a pair of cutting cylinders cutting a web at a cutting location to form signatures; a pair of transport cylinders positively gripping and transporting the signatures, the transport cylinders defining a first nip, the transport cylinders each having a radius of a first length, the first nip and the cutting location being separated by a first distance that is slightly shorter than a length of each of the signatures; and a pair of acceleration cylinders positively gripping and transporting the signatures, the acceleration cylinders defining a second nip, acceleration cylinders each having a radius of a second length greater than the first length, the pair of transport cylinders receiving and releasing the signatures at a first velocity and the pair of acceleration cylinders receiving the signatures from the pair of transport cylinders and releasing the signatures at a second velocity that is greater than the first velocity, the first nip and the second nip being separated by a distance that is slightly shorter than the length of each of the signatures, such that the transport cylinders release each of the signatures as the acceleration cylinders grip the respective signature and the transport and acceleration cylinders maintain positive control over the signatures during transport; and a motor rotating the transport cylinders and the acceleration cylinders at a same angular velocity such that Appeal 2011-007694 Application 12/288,070 3 transport cylinders have a surface velocity less than a surface velocity of the acceleration cylinders. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 5,024,128; iss. Jun. 18, 1991) and Bryer (US 4,159,823; iss. Jul. 3, 1979); 2. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell, Bryer, and Sussmeier (US 6,687,570 B1; iss. Feb. 3, 2004); and 3. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Campbell and Marschke (US 5,088,590; iss. Feb. 18, 1992). OPINION Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Campbell discloses each of the features from claim 1 except the different diameters of the transport and acceleration cylinders and the corresponding different surface velocities. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that Bryer teaches rotating cylinders having different diameters at the same velocity producing different surface velocities of the cylinders and reasons that it would have been obvious to increase the diameter of the acceleration cylinders relative to the transfer cylinders “as a substitute to the known phase change device of Campbell, Jr. used for the same purpose.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that cylinders having different diameters rotating at the same angular velocity have different surface Appeal 2011-007694 Application 12/288,070 4 velocities and that the same principle is applied in phase changing gearing systems such as the actuation device for the acceleration cylinders in Campbell, Jr. through utilization of intermeshing gears of different diameters for varying velocities. Ans. 8. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s reasoning and contends that although the Examiner explains that the proposed increase in radius is a substitute used for the same purpose as the phase change device in Campbell, this explanation is without merit. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would not have modified Campbell for the reasons provided by the Examiner. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. We agree. Initially, we note that the phase change adjustment referenced by the Examiner is explained in the first embodiment of Campbell (see Fig. 2 and col. 3, ll. 32-35). Campbell explains that the second cutting head 39 can be rotated with respect to the first cutting head 17 using phase changing devices 55 and 56 in order to increase or decrease the length of the chips 51-54 and the phase change can be made while the sheeter is running. Campbell, col. 3, ll. 32-37; see also col. 4, ll. 13-16. This phase change adjusts the relative position of the blades on one cutter with respect to the blades on the other. The Examiner has not adequately explained why increasing the radial lengths of the cylinders would in any way be a substitute for a dynamic phase adjustment device, as contemplated by Campbell. An increased radial length would simply provide an increase in surface velocity, not any dynamic phase adjustment to increase or decrease the length of the chips 51- 54 in Campbell. Thus, the preponderance of evidence before us does not support the Examiner’s conclusion and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or Appeal 2011-007694 Application 12/288,070 5 claims 4-6 which depend from claim 1. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and the stated basis for the rejection of claim 1 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. Claim 8 Claim 8 is independent and recites that the first acceleration cylinders include roll segments. In the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner simply states that “first nip receives sheets at a first velocity then accelerated to a second velocity and further into a third velocity by the second pair; see col. 4, lines 30+ in discussing the operation as the same as the embodiment of figure 1 described by col. 3, lines 58+.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to make any findings regarding the roll segments or provide any reasoning for a modification to Campbell, Jr. to include the claimed roll segments. App. Br. 11-12; Reply. Br. 5. We agree and, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 or claims 9-11 which depend from claim 8. Claim 13 depends from claim 8 and the stated basis for the rejection of claim 13 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 8. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 Claim 14 is independent and is directed to a method including “cutting a web with a first cutting pair to create partial cuts in the web” and “cutting the web at the partial cuts with a second cutting pair to create a signature.” Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because none of the references disclose the claimed partial cuts. App. Br. 13; Reply. Br. 5. The Examiner makes no findings regarding the claimed partial cuts and Appeal 2011-007694 Application 12/288,070 6 provides no explanation as to why the partial cuts would have been obvious. See Ans. 6. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 or claims 15- 17 which depend from claim 14. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-11, and 13-17. REVERSED rvb