Ex Parte Schultze et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201713508541 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 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. 2179-0082 1021 EXAMINER MANSEN, MICHAEL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/508,541 07/30/2012 10800 7590 11/21/2017 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Stephan Schultze 11/21/2017 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 STEPHAN SCHULTZE and HANS-JUERGEN DOERES Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 Technology Center 3600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—14.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods of operating a winding device to wind or unwind a web material such as paper, fabric, paperboard, plastic, metal, or rubber in the form of a film or foil. Spec. Title, 1:20—23. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for operating a winding device of a processing machine for processing a web material, comprising: (a) processing the web material so as to wind up or unwind the web material with a winding device, (b) operating the winding device so as to specify a web tension during the processing step, and (c) during the processing step, switching from a first web tension specification method to a second web tension specification method, wherein the winding device includes a dancer that is movable in position relative to predefined limits in order to specify a web tension, and 1 In the Final Office Action, the Office Action Summary indicates only claims 1—13 are rejected, but the Detailed Action section indicates claims 1— 14 are rejected. 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 7, 2012, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 14, 2015, the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 12, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 6, 2015, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 6, 2016. 2 Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 wherein only one of the first web tension specification method and the second web tension specification method includes maintaining the dancer in a fixed position relative to the predefined limits. REJECTIONS Claims 1—7 and 10—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Schaede (US 4,896,808, issued January 30, 1990). Final Act. 2—3. Claims 1, 2, 7—10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Elmore (GB 2170486 A, issued August 6, 1986). Final Act. 3. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS § 102(b) Rejection based on Schaede Appellants’ arguments for patentability concern a particular roller that applies tension to web material in a device that winds or unwinds the web material on a reel. This roller is termed a “dancer” in the relevant industry. Appellants argue Schaede fails to disclose a “dancer in a fixed position relative to the predefined limits,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants state “[t]he term ‘fixed’, as commonly used and understood, and as used in the present application, means unable to move in any direction.” App. Br. 5. Appellants contend the Examiner did not provide a citation to Schaede to support the allegation that dancer roller 52 is maintainable in any fixed position even when it is at an extreme end of its range of motion. Id. We agree with Appellants’ argument. We note that Appellants’ Specification mentions that in dancer-free operation, the dancer 110 is 3 Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 “fixed.” Spec. 6—7. No explicit definition of “fixed” is provided in the Specification. Accordingly, we interpret the term according to its ordinary and plain meaning. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The term “fixed” is defined to mean “securely placed or fastened : STATIONARY.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 441 (10th ed. 1999). The Examiner considers the dancer roller 52 to be “fixed” when positioned at either extreme of its range of motion. Final Act. 2. However, even when positioned at an extreme, the dancer roller 52 is still able to move toward the other extreme in Schaede. Figure 1 of Schaede is reproduced below to assist in illustrating this point. Figure 1 of Schaede shows dancer roller 52 mounted on lever 56, which is driven by piston rod 58 of a pneumatic cylinder, to adjust tension of web 7. 4 Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 Specifically, the dancer roller 52 can move only so far as permitted by the range of motion of the piston rod 58 of the pneumatic cylinder driven by pressure tank 68, which acts upon lever 56 to cause it to pivot up or down. Schaede 5:24-45. The dancer roller 52 thus moves in an arcuate path between extremes defined by the piston rod’s range of motion. However, even at an extreme, the dancer roller 52 is not fixed, but is free to move toward the other extreme if so driven by the pneumatic cylinder. Thus, Schaede does not disclose a “dancer in a fixed position relative to the predefined limits,” as recited in claim 1. Claim 10 recites a similar limitation to that of claim 1. Appellants similarly argue that Schaede does not disclose the dancer roller 52 is “fixed” as recited in claim 10. For the reasons explained, we agree with Appellants’ argument. Claims 2—7 and 12—14 depend from claims 1 and 10, and thus incorporate their limitations. Accordingly, these claims are not disclosed by Schaede for the reasons explained with respect to claims 1 and 10. § 102(b) Rejection based on Elmore Claim 1 Appellants argue that Elmore fails to disclose a “dancer in a fixed position relative to the predefined limits,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14—15. Specifically, Appellants argue that even when idler roll 72 is positioned at an extreme of its range of motion, it is still moveable toward the opposite extreme and thus is not fixed in position relative to the predefined limits, as required by the dancer of claim 1. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds that Elmore’s idler roll 72 cannot move further in a particular direction when at the extreme limits of its range of movement, and 5 Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 finds Elmore discloses the claimed limitation. Final Act. 3. The arguments and findings are thus similar to those discussed in relation to Schaede. Figure 1 of FI more is shown below to facilitate understanding of the Examiner’s and Appellants’ contentions. Figure 1 of Elmore shows an idler roll 72 attached to dancer arm 74 which pivots at point 78 to move in an arcuate manner when driven by dancer load signal from micro-processor 24. As can be seen in Figure 1, the idler roll 72 pivots on the dancer arm 74 in an arcuate path between the extremes defining its range of motion when driven by device 76 under an output from the micro-processor 24. See Elmore 2:40—69. Even when the idler roll 72 is positioned at the extremes of its range of motion, there is no indication in Elmore that the idler roll 72 is 6 Appeal 2016-002756 Application 13/508,541 fixed there, and it appears free to move toward the other extreme if so driven by device 76. Thus, we agree with Appellants’ argument that Elmore fails to disclose “dancer in a fixed position relative to the predefined limits,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants present the same argument for claim 10, which contains a similar limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 for similar reasons as stated with respect to claim 1. Claims 2, 7—9, 13, and 14 depend from independent claims 1 and 10 and thus incorporate their limitations. For the reasons stated, these dependent claims also are not disclosed by Elmore. § 112, Second Paragraph Rejection Appellants present no arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Final Act. 2. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection. Remaining Arguments Our decision on the stated grounds is dispositive of the appeal and thus we do not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation