Ex Parte Schoulz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

14911607 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
14/911,607 02/11/2016 Adam Nicholas Schoulz 64936144US02 4218
23556 7590 02/28/2018
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Patent Docketing
2300 Winchester Rd.
NEENAH, WI54956
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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 ADAM NICHOLAS SCHOULZ
Appeal 2018-001571
Application 14/911,6071
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Adam Nicholas Schoulz (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9.2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief lists Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
2 Claims 10—20 are withdrawn. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001571
Application 14/911,607
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to using vacuum rolls for folding
flexible materials and products. Spec. 1:3—5.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below
with emphasis added.
1. A method for folding an article comprising,
directing the article to a receiving device moving in a
first direction, the article defining a leading portion and a
trailing portion;
holding the leading portion of the article on the receiving
device;
transferring the leading portion of the article to a folding
device moving in a second direction, opposite the first
direction;
transferring the leading portion of the article from the
folding device to an oscillating device moving in the first
direction while holding the trailing portion of the article on the
receiving device moving in the first direction;
reversing the oscillating device to move in the second
direction while continuing to hold the leading portion of the
article on the oscillating device and while continuing to hold
the trailing portion of the article on the receiving device moving
in the first direction;
folding the article by overlaying the leading portion of
the article on the trailing portion of the article to define a folded
state while continuing to hold the trailing portion of the article
on the receiving device moving in the first direction.
Br. 8 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2018-001571
Application 14/911,607
PRIOR ART RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Coenen US 2012/0157284 A1 June 21, 2012
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(I) Claims 1—6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Coenen.
(II) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Coenen.
ANALYSIS
Rejection (I)
The Examiner finds that Coenen discloses all the limitations recited in
claim 1, and, specifically, discloses “holding the leading portion of the
article on the receiving device (via on vacuum roller 101; transferring the
leading portion of the article to a folding device moving in a second
direction (Figs. 47 & 48; via 170), opposite the first direction.” Final Act.
2—3. Thus, the Examiner finds that device 170 in Coenen corresponds to a
folding device as recited in claim 1.
Appellant’s sole argument3 on Appeal is that Coenen fails to disclose
the step of transferring a leading portion of the article to a folding device
3 Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant will be
addressed. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010).
Any arguments not included in the appeal brief will not be considered by the
Board for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2018-001571
Application 14/911,607
moving in a direction (second direction) opposite of the direction a receiving
device moves. See Br. 6. In this regard, Appellant states:
With the method of the present invention, the article is
transferred from a receiving device (110) moving in a first
direction to a folding device (170) moving continuously in a
second direction. This is different than the method disclosed by
the Coenen reference; with the method of the Coenen reference,
the article is transferred from a receiving roll (110) to an
oscillating roll (150) that reverses direction and, therefore, is not
“moving in a second direction”.
Id. (emphasis added).4
In response, the Examiner states, “the features upon which applicant
relies (i.e., folding device (170) moving continuously in a second direction)
are not recited in the rejected claim(s).” Ans. 5—A. The Examiner also finds
that, even under Appellant’s apparent claim construction (requiring
continuous movement of the folding device), the rejection is proper because
device 170 of Coenen rotates continuously. Id. at 4.
Appellant’s argument regarding device 150 of Coenen does not
address the Examiner’s rejection because the rejection relies on Coenen’s
device 170, not device 150, for the teaching of a folding device. See Final
Act. 2. The Examiner’s finding on this point is further discussed on pages 3
and 4 of the Answer. See Ans. 3 (stating, “[Coenen discloses] the same
claimed method of the present invention, having article (500) to be
transferred from a receiving device (110) moving in a first direction to a
folding device (170) moving in a second direction, regardless [of] passing
4 Coenen refers to its first, second, and third devices (in sequential order of
contact with the workpiece) with reference numerals 110, 150, and 170,
respectively. See, e.g., Coenen Fig. 46. Appellant’s Figures use the same
reference numbers, but with the positions of devices 150 and 170 reversed.
4
Appeal 2018-001571
Application 14/911,607
through the oscillating roll 150.”). Appellant provides no discussion
pointing out error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to device 170 of
Coenen. See Br. 3—6. As Appellant’s sole argument alleges that device 150
of Coenen fails to satisfy the limitations in claim 1 regarding a folding roller
(specifically, the rotation of the folding roller), but the rejection is not based
upon a finding that device 150 of Coenen is a folding roller, we are not
apprised of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1
as anticipated by Coenen.
Appellant makes no additional arguments for claims 2—6, 8, and 9 (see
Br. 3—6, and these claims fall with claim 1 from which they depend.
Rejection (II)
In support of patentability of claim 7, Appellant relies on the
argument discussed above regarding claim 1. Br. 6. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Coenen because
Appellant’s argument against the anticipation rejection of claim 1 does not
apprise of error in the Examiner’s unpatentability determination of claim 7.
DECISION
(I) We affirm the rejection of claims 1—6, 8, and 9 as anticipated by
Coenen.
(II) We affirm the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Coenen.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5