Ex Parte Solberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2013

10461321 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRUCE JEROME SOLBERG and
DAVID KENT MATTHEIS
____________________

Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce Jerome Solberg and David Kent Mattheis (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of unwinding a roll of web material, the method
comprising steps of:
a) rotating the roll to unwind the web material at a web
material speed,
b) routing the web material around a perforated air
conveyance, whereby the machine direction of motion of the
web material is altered,
c) measuring a web-tension analog value for the web
material according to a force acting upon a tension-sensing
element said tension-sensing element being responsive to a
boundary layer of air proximate to said web material as said
web material passes proximate to said tension sensing element,
d) determining a web velocity analog value,
e) determining an instantaneous integral gain according
to the web velocity analog value,
f) adjusting the speed of the web according to the
instantaneous integral gain, and,
g) routing the web material to a downstream process.
Rejections
Appellants request our review of the following rejections:
(1) claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McGary (US 6,328,852 B1, iss. Dec. 11, 2001), Rantala (US
5,052,233, iss. Oct. 1, 1991), and Appellants’ Admitted Prior
Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
3
Art (AAPA), described in Appellants’ Specification (p. 7, ll. 1-
27; and
(2) claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McGary, Rantala, and Rogers (US 5,709,352, iss. Jan. 20,
1998).
OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to a method of unwinding a
roll of web material and require, in relevant part, steps of determining a web
velocity analog value, determining an instantaneous integral gain according
to the web velocity analog value, and adjusting the speed of the web
according to the instantaneous integral gain. Independent claim 9 is directed
to an apparatus for unwinding a roll of web material comprising, in relevant
part, a data processing system adapted to determine a web velocity analog
value and an instantaneous integral gain according to the web velocity
analog value, and a controller adapted to adjust the speed of the web
material according to the instantaneous integral gain.
Obviousness based on McGary, Rantala, and AAPA
Appellants argue, and we agree, that McGary and Rantala do not
disclose or suggest determining a web velocity analog value, utilizing the
web velocity analog value to determine an instantaneous integral gain, and
adjusting the speed of the web according to the instantaneous integral gain.
See App. Br. 5. Indeed, the Examiner implicitly acknowledges this
deficiency and relies on AAPA in an attempt to remedy it. See Ans. 10-11
(admonishing Appellants for attacking McGary and Rantala and “forgetting
that the admitted prior art was used in the rejection and not just McGary and
Rantala”).
Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
4
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification, at page 7, in lines
1-27, admits that “the instantaneous integral [gain] of the drive controller
600 measuring and adjusting the speed of the web is known in the art.” Ans.
5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to replace the
airfoil of McGary with the airfoil of Rantala and the known drive controller
described in AAPA, “to show or explain how the material is being tensioned
and measured using a sensor to adjust the speed of the web material.” Id.
Appellants’ Specification describes an embodiment of the invention in
which the instantaneous integral gain of the drive controller is determined
according to a velocity analog value of the web. Spec., p. 7, ll. 17-18. We
find this statement to be a description of the present invention, not an
admission of prior art. However, Appellants’ Specification admits that a
drive controller suitable for practicing this embodiment of Appellants’
invention “that uses the integral of a value derived from the error signal to
derive the controller output correction” was known and available at the time
of Appellants’ invention. Spec., p. 7, ll. 22-26. Thus, the admission in
Appellants’ Specification establishes that a drive controller accommodating
integral control with an instantaneous (i.e., adjustable) integral gain existed
in the prior art at the time of Appellants’ invention. We find no admission in
Appellants’ Specification directed to a prior art methodology or algorithm
for determining the instantaneous integral gain of the known controller.
Even accepting that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the known integral controller described in
AAPA as the drive controller in the method and apparatus of McGary and
Rantala, the analysis supporting the obviousness rejection lacks findings
and/or technical reasoning establishing an apparent reason why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to determine a web
Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
5
velocity analog value and to determine the instantaneous integral gain of the
controller according to the web velocity analog value. Thus, the Examiner’s
findings and analysis are not sufficient to establish that the subject matter of
claims 1 and 8 would have been obvious. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 8 and of claims 2-7, which depend from claim 1, as
unpatentable over McGary, Rantala, and AAPA.
Obviousness based on McGary, Rantala, and Rogers
In contesting the rejection of claims 1-18 as unpatentable over
McGary, Rantala, and Rogers, Appellants reiterate their argument that
McGary and Rantala do not disclose or suggest determining a web velocity
analog value, utilizing the web velocity analog value to determine an
instantaneous integral gain, and adjusting web speed according to the
instantaneous integral gain. App. Br. 7. Appellants add that the Examiner’s
application of Rogers does not remedy that deficiency. Id. According to
Appellants, the Examiner has not provided any articulated reason with some
rational underpinning to support the conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 1, 8, and 9 would have been obvious. Id.
In articulating the rejection based on McGary, Rantala, and Rogers,
the Examiner does not rely on Rogers for any teaching directed to
determining a web velocity analog value and utilizing the web velocity
analog value to determine an instantaneous integral gain. The Examiner
finds that Rantala discloses that
during the operation the speed of the web material
can be adjusted (i.e., help of a movable gauging
bar, which can [be] optimized for different web
speeds and tensions which inherently determines
an instantaneous integral gain since it uses the
analog value to adjust the speed of the web along
the controlled segment of the web and every
Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
6
machine has a certain maximum speed, see column
4, lines 31-33) and velocity is determined through
the speed, acceleration (a=V dv/dt), see column 3,
lines 38-45, and abstract, and figures 2-4.
Ans. 8; see also id. at 11.
The Examiner appears to be relying on the theory of inherency to
establish that Rantala discloses determining an instantaneous integral gain.
In essence, the Examiner finds that Rantala somehow determines an
instantaneous integral gain in adjusting web speed. However, the Examiner
does not coherently explain the basis for this finding.
Rantala measures web tension and adjusts rotation speed of the rolls
according to the measured tension. Col. 1, ll. 20-23. Rantala measures web
tension by measuring the pressure introduced by the air cushion between the
web and the gauging bar, which is linearly proportional to the pressure
imposed on the roll by the tension of the web. Col. 3, ll. 7-10. Rantala then
converts that measurement signal from voltage to current and then converts
the analog current signal into digital format for use in the computer system.
Col. 3, ll. 29-48. We appreciate that speed is the integration of acceleration
over time. However, it is not apparent, and the Examiner has not adequately
explained, why the analog voltage or current signal from the pressure
transducer is an “instantaneous integral gain.”
Moreover, even accepting that the analog signal from Rantala’s
pressure transducer is an instantaneous integral gain, the Examiner does not
point to any disclosure in Rantala of determining a web velocity analog
value and determining the analog voltage or current signal according to that
web velocity analog value. Rather, Rantala determines the analog voltage or
current signal by measuring the pressure introduced by the air cushion
between the web and the gauging bar.
Appeal 2010-009209
Application 10/461,321
7
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection lacks the necessary
findings and analysis to support the conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 1, 8, and 9, including determining a web velocity analog value,
determining an instantaneous integral gain according to the web velocity
analog value, and adjusting web speed according to the instantaneous
integral gain, would have been obvious. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 as unpatentable over McGary, Rantala,
and Rogers.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh