Ex Parte Selle et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 21, 2019

14665463 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/665,463 03/23/2015
22222 7590 06/25/2019
GEORGE R CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI 53589
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul A. Selle
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CMD228D 1464
EXAMINER
HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2019 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):
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL A. SELLE,
GORDON M. BREIER,
DAVID G. KUCHENBECKER, and
GREGORY T. PRELLWITZ 1
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an Appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-17. App. Br. 5. Claims 9, 10, and 18-
1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is CMD Corporation." App. Br. 3.
Accordingly, we proceed on the basis that, for the purposes of this Appeal,
CMD Corporation is the "Appellant."
2 Appellant identifies "[a]n appeal decision rendered in the parent case
(Appeal No. 2012-009478, Application 12/336,328)." App. Br. 4. The
Decision in this Appeal in the parent case was mailed November 28, 2014
(hereinafter "Decision").
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
69 have been canceled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we do not find error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-17.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates generally to the art of bag
making and bag making machines. More specifically, it relates to bag
making and bag making machines where bags are formed with seals and/ or
perforations." Spec. 1:3-5. Claims 1 and 12 are independent, are
illustrative of the claims on appeal, and are reproduced below.
1. A bag machine for making bags from a film that
travels along a film path in a downstream direction, comprising:
a sealing station disposed along the film path;
a perforating station, disposed along the film path
downstream of the sealing station; and
a seal and perforation inspection station disposed along
the film path downstream of the perforating station.
12. A bag machine for making bags from a film that
travels along a film path in a downstream direction, comprising:
a sealing station disposed along the film path;
a perforating station, disposed along the film path
downstream of the sealing station, wherein the perforating
station includes a control input; and
a closed loop controller, disposed along the film path
downstream of the perforating station, and disposed to detect
the seal and perforation and to provide, to the control output, a
control signal in response thereto.
REFERENCES
Saindon et al. US 5,488,480 Jan. 30, 1996
(hereinafter "Saindon '480")
2
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
Saindon et al. US 5,660,674
(hereinafter "Saindon '674")
Ruben et al. US 5,861,078
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Aug. 26, 1997
Jan. 19, 1999
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Saindon '674 and Saindon '480.
Claims 4---6 and 14--17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Saindon '674, Saindon '480, and Ruben.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 11-13
as obvious over Saindon '674 and Saindon '480
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 11 together (see App. Br. 15-
18) and claims 12 and 13 together (see App. Br. 10-15). Appellant also
presents separate arguments for claim 2 (see App. Br. 19-23). We select
independent claims 1 and 12, and claim 2 ( which depends from claim 1 ), for
review. The remaining claims, i.e., claims 3, 7, 8, 11, and 13, stand or fall
with their respectively selected claim. 3 See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). We
also address claims 1, 2, and 12 in the order Appellant argues them.
Claim 12
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Saindon '674 for
disclosing the limitations of claim 12, including noting where Saindon '674
3 Appellant, when making these arguments in view of the two Saindon
patents, also references claims 4---6 and 14--17. See above. However, claims
4---6 and 14--17 are rejected under both Saindon patents as well as Ruben.
See Final Act. 4. Appellant does not separately argue this rejection
involving Ruben. Thus, we understand that claims 4---6 and 14--1 7 will stand
or fall with their respective parent claim 1 or claim 12 as well.
3
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
teaches a controller 15 that permits automatic or manual adjustments based
on a variety of parameters, including perforation to seal spacing. See Final
Act. 3 (referencing Saindon '674 7:22-30 and 10:1-5); Ans. 5 (referencing
Saindon '674 7:22-59).
The Examiner considers these teachings as disclosing the recited
"closed loop controller." See Ans. 5. Appellant disagrees referencing
"pages 6-7 of the Decision" stating, "[g]iven the Board's earlier ruling that
prior art patent ... [Saindon '674] is an open loop control, the rejections of
claims 12-17 should be reversed."4 App. Br. 12, 13; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant thereupon addresses various sections of Saindon '67 4 previously
addressed in the Decision (see Decision 7; App. Br. 13), but Appellant does
not address columns 7 or 10 of Saindon '67 4 specifically identified above.
The Examiner notes that Appellant's Specification states:
Closed loop controlling, as used herein, includes
controlling such that the parameter being controlled (skirt
length, i.e.), is monitored and adjusted in response to the
monitored value. Closed loop controller, as used herein,
includes a controller that effects a closed loop control.
Ans. 5 (referencing Spec. 7:18-21). In view of Appellant's language, the
Examiner presently considers Saindon '674 as "a closed loop system ...
[because Saindon '674] actively controls operation of the system based on
sensed information reported back to the control logic affecting the input."
Ans. 5 (referencing Saindon '674 7:22-59). More specifically, "[c]ontroller
15 of [Saindon '674 sends] ... control signals to a control output to adjust
the seal and perforation locations thereby affecting the input as a closed loop
4 Note, this is an argument presented by Appellant in the Decision; it is not a
proper paraphrasing of the analysis of that Decision. See Decision 6-7.
4
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
system." Ans. 5; see also id. at 6. The Examiner's findings and conclusions
are bolstered by Saindon '674's further discussion regarding controller 15
making adjustments should a parameter ( e.g., perforation to seal spacing)
exceed a preselected limit. See Saindon '674 10:6-23 ("[t]his compensation
function is continuous and ongoing.").
As indicated above, Appellant does not address these teachings, but
instead, relies on language in the Decision that, as the Examiner points out,
addressed a method claim which is unlike the present apparatus claim. See
Ans. 3; App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2. We additionally note that Appellant
does not address the secondary reference to Saindon '480, which the
Examiner also relied upon in rejecting claim 12. See Final Act. 3. Appellant
does not explain how this secondary reference fails to render obvious "a seal
and perforation inspection station ... downstream perforation station 22" ( of
the primary reference) as the Examiner concludes. Final Act. 4.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12,
or dependent claims 13-1 7.
Claim 1
Claim 1 does not recite a "closed loop" system as in claim 12 above.
Instead, claim 1 recites "a seal and perforation inspection station disposed
along the film path downstream of the perforating station." There is no
indication in claim 1 that this inspection station alters, adjusts, or provides
feedback to the upstream process, only that there is an inspection station
"downstream of the perforating station."
The Examiner relies on the secondary reference to Saindon '480 for
disclosing "both seals and perforations in a high speed film." Final Act. 3
(the primary reference "do[es] not directly disclose positioning a seal and/or
5
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
perforation inspection station"); Ans. 6. Appellant, however, still addresses
the primary reference on this point contending that Saindon '674, "does not
teach to detect both the seal and perforation." App. Br. 18. Appellant's
attempt to argue the art individually is not persuasive. See Ans. 7.
When Appellant addresses the secondary reference to Saindon '480,
Appellant contends that Saindon '480 pertains to the detection of
"perforations only," and also, "only for knowing where to separate bags."
App. Br. 18. "There is no suggestion to detect seals and perforations ... as
required." App. Br. 18.
However, Saindon '480 teaches a process of "selectively perforating
a plastic seal in a predefined position with respect to a formation."
Saindon '480 3: 15-16. Thus, although Saindon '480 is replete with
references to a "seal or perforation" (Saindon '480 2:31-37, 2:44; see also
id. at 3: 1-10), Saindon '480 teaches that the location of the one will also be
the location of the other (i.e., Saindon '480 states "perforating a plastic
seal"). Hence, we are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that Saindon
'480 is directed to "perforations only," or that there is no suggestion to
detect "seals and perforation" as argued. App. Br. 18.
Regarding the limitation of the seal and perforation inspection
occurring "downstream of the perforating station," the Examiner states that
[p ]erforations and seals are provided in the web material prior to inspection
thus the [inspection] system is located downstream sealing and perforation
devices in order to detect both at the inspection station location." Ans. 7;
see also Final Act. 4. Appellant does not refute this logic of the inspection
occurring downstream from where the perforation is created.
6
Appeal2018-008121
Application 14/665,463
Hence, Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
In short, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred based on Appellant's
contention that "there is no 'seal and perforation inspection station disposed
along the film path downstream of the perforating station' in the prior art."
Reply Br. 3.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites an inspection station that
"includes a skirt adjust output" and a perforation station that includes "a
skirt adjust input connected to the skirt adjust output." "In other words,
claims 2-8 and 11 require a closed loop control, which is not found in the
prior art." App. Br. 19. Appellant's subsequent arguments mirror those
previously addressed above regarding claim 12. See App. Br. 21-23.
Appellant's contentions are not persuasive for the same reasons (and,
particularly, in view of the disclosures in columns 7 and 10 of Saindon
'674), as well as our discussion of parent claim 1.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8
and 11. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-17.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.
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
7