Ex Parte Spindler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

12364770 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

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.
12/364,770 02/03/2009 Jorg Spindler VOI0564.US 4697
41863 7590 03/25/2014
TAYLOR IP, P.C.
P.O. Box 560
142. S Main Street
Avilla, IN 46710
EXAMINER
MINSKEY, JACOB T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2014 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 JORG SPINDLER, NIELS HARDT, RUDOLF MUNCH,
OLIVER KAUFMANN, JENS HAAG, ARMIN BAUER, and
HARTMUT ABEL
____________

Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
and apparatus for dewatering a fibrous material, as in paper and paperboard
manufacturing. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated (claims
1 and 12–16) or obvious (claims 2 and 4–11).1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

OPINION

A. Introduction
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method and apparatus for
dewatering a fibrous material, such as a paper or paperboard manufacturing
machine, which lays down a web of fibrous material that continuously loses
water as it moves along the machine direction, eventually forming a sheet.
Specifically, Appellants claim an apparatus that solves the problem of
ensuring consistency of dewatering across the fibrous material web and
allows dewatering along the machine direction to be controlled in stages so
as to create a curve of water content along that direction. Claim 1 is
representative and reads:
A dewatering apparatus for the adjustable controllable
dewatering of a fibrous material which is conveyed as a fibrous
web that is divided into at least two zones arranged side-by-side
in a cross direction (CD), the dewatering apparatus comprising:

1 Office action mailed October 21, 2011. Claim 3 was previously canceled
and was no longer pending at the time of the final rejection. Appeal Brief,
filed March 20, 2012 (“Br.”), 5.

Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

3
a plurality of water weight sensors assigned to each of
said at least two zones including a first water weight sensor and
a second water weight sensor arranged in a mutually offset
position in the CD direction,
said plurality of water weight sensors being arranged in
one of a one-dimensional and a multi-dimensional sensor
arrangement,
said plurality of water weight sensors being positioned
and configured to carry out measurements of water weight of
the fibrous material,
the dewatering apparatus being configured to dewater
the fibrous material dependent upon a dewatering curve
defined in a machine direction (MD) and upon said
measurements of water weight of the fibrous material,
said water weight sensors and said dewatering elements
being arranged in alternating succession in the MD direction.
Claims App., Br. 16 (some paragraphing, indentation, and emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1 and 12–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Beselt, US Patent Publication
2007/0151689 A1, published July 5, 2007.
2. Claims 2 and 4–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beselt in view of Biornstad,
US Patent No. 3,935,061, issued Jan. 27, 1976.
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 4, 2012(“Ans.”), 4–8.
With respect to the § 102(b) rejection, Appellants dispute the
Examiner’s finding of disclosure within Beselt of the following claim
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

4
limitations: “a plurality of water weight sensors,” “the dewatering apparatus
being configured to dewater the fibrous material dependent upon a
dewatering curve defined in a machine direction (MD),” and “said water
weight sensors and said dewatering elements being arranged in alternating
succession in the MD direction.” Br. 12–14. With respect to the § 103(a)
rejection, which relates only to dependent claims depending from claim 1,
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding of disclosure within Beselt
or Biornstad of the additional limitations of the dependent claims. Id. at 14.
Instead, Appellants argue only that the patentability of independent claim 1
renders the dependent claims patentable as well. Id. Thus, to decide
whether to affirm or reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections, we need only
determine whether Beselt discloses the limitations that Appellants allege are
not disclosed there.

B. Discussion
1. Does Beselt disclose “a plurality of water weight sensors”?
Appellants first argue that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation, Beselt does not disclose the claim limitation “a plurality of
water weight sensors.” Br. 12. Instead, argue Appellants, Beselt discloses
only a single optical moisture sensor or a single optical moisture sensor that
can sense moisture at multiple locations simultaneously using fiber optics
distributed across the web of fibrous material being dewatered. Id. We
disagree with Appellants’ contention that optical moisture sensors do not
constitute water weight sensors. As Appellants point out in their own
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

5
Specification, while water weight sensors can operate in other ways, they
can also operate by measuring either “radiation which is reflected from the
material belt or its covering” or “radiation which passes through the material
belt or its covering.” Spec. ¶ [0018]. Moreover, Beselt discloses the
concept of using different types of sensors, not only optical moisture
sensors. Beselt ¶ [0020] (“It is noted that other forms of sensing equipment
can be used in the present invention . . . .”). In addition, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Beselt discloses using a plurality of water weight
sensors. Id. (“It is noted that . . . sensing equipment is preferably positioned
at several locations along the web.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred by finding that Beselt
discloses “a plurality of water weight sensors.”

2. Does Beselt disclose “said water weight sensors and said dewatering
elements being arranged in alternating succession in the [machine]
direction”?
Appellants next assert that, if Beselt discloses “a plurality of water
weight sensors,” it does not disclose arranging those sensors in alternating
succession with a plurality of dewatering elements along the machine
direction, as is required in Appellants’ claims. Br. 12. We note first that
Appellants do not fully develop this argument in their brief, instead only
noting disagreement with the Examiner’s finding that Beselt discloses the
claimed arrangement of dewatering elements and water weight sensors.
“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as to the existence of factual
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

6
disputes do not amount to a developed argument.” SmithKline Beecham
Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Such an
undeveloped statement of fact does not comply with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), which requires arguments in the appeal brief to “explain
why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant.” Accordingly, we do not believe that Appellants have carried
their burden under In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008), to
show that the preponderance of the evidence on the record weighs against
the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952
F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”). Thus, we must agree with the
Examiner that Beselt discloses this claim limitation.
Additionally, on our own review of Beselt, we are persuaded that the
Examiner was correct to find that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would understand Beselt to disclose an alternating arrangement of
dewatering elements and water weight sensors along the machine direction.
As noted above, Beselt discloses a plurality of water weight sensors. It also
discloses a plurality of dewatering elements. Beselt ¶ [0018] (“other web
processing equipment, such as . . . additional dryer sections . . . may be
included within the machine”). Further, Beselt discloses using the water
weight sensors to control the dewatering elements. Id. at [0020]
(“Equipment for sensing characteristics of the web 128, represented at 132,
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

7
is located substantially adjacent to the web roll 130. It is noted that other
forms of sensing equipment can be used in the present invention and that
sensing equipment is preferably positioned at several locations along the
web 128. A controller . . . is provided for controlling the operation of [the]
machine.”); Id. at [0006] (“In these continuous flat sheet processes, it would
be desirable to track the change of certain process variables along the
machine direction to produce gradients that can be used for monitoring,
control, and optimization.”). Given that the goal of Beselt is to “produce
gradients” representing the change of moisture content “along the machine
direction,” that Beselt discloses placing moisture sensors at multiple points
along the machine direction, that Beselt discloses multiple drying elements,
and that Beselt discloses using the multiple moisture sensors to control the
multiple drying elements, we find that the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would immediately comprehend that the arrangement of sensors and drying
sections most compatible with the disclosure of Beselt is an alternating
arrangement, with each moisture sensor controlling the operation of the
drying section immediately before or after it.

3. Does Beselt disclose “the dewatering apparatus being configured to
dewater the fibrous material dependent upon a dewatering curve defined in
a machine direction”?
Appellants’ final disagreement with the Examiner concerns the
Examiner’s finding that Beselt discloses the claim limitation that requires
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

8
“the dewatering apparatus [to be] configured to dewater the fibrous material
dependent upon a dewatering curve defined in a machine direction.” Br. 12–
14. Appellants argue that “a [machine direction] dewatering curve can be
developed by data obtained from the sensors of the prior art, but such a
created curve would more accurately be termed a moisture content curve of
the web, not [a machine direction] dewatering curve, which the present
invention is dependent upon and is configured to use to dewater the web.”
Id. at 12–13 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that a “dewatering
curve” would “provide a control standard used . . . to adjust the dewatering
of the web,” while a “moisture content curve” would only represent the
actual result of the dewatering operations performed by the claimed
apparatus. Id. According to Appellants, Beselt only discloses a “moisture
content curve,” not a “dewatering curve.” The Examiner responds that the
two curves “are the same thing,” with the curve being “used to detect the
amount of moisture in the web and . . . then used to adjust the operations of
the machine to control the moisture content,” so the disclosure of either type
of curve in Beselt anticipates the claim of either type of curve by Appellants.
Ans. 10.
On the record here, Appellants have not carried their burden to rebut
the Examiner’s finding that Beselt discloses the claimed limitation of a
“dewatering curve.” While Appellants may comprehend a distinction
between a “dewatering curve” that represents a set of moisture-content
control setpoints along the machine direction and a “moisture content curve”
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

9
that represents the set of actual measured moisture content readings along
the machine direction, we are not convinced by Appellants’ argument that
the claims require such a distinction. The claims only require that “the
dewatering apparatus be[] configured to dewater the fibrous material
dependent upon a dewatering curve defined in a machine direction,” which
could mean either that the dewatering apparatus is configured to dewater the
fibrous material to match a desired curve (as Appellants contend) or that the
dewatering apparatus is configured to dewater the fibrous material in a way
that produces a curve of moisture content along the machine direction (as the
Examiner argues). Appellants provide an argument for the former
interpretation over the latter, but they do not point to any record evidence to
support this argument, so we cannot find that they have carried their burden.
In addition, even accepting Appellants’ interpretation of “dewatering
curve” as a desired curve of moisture content along the machine direction
that the dewatering apparatus attempts to match, we agree with the Examiner
in finding that Beselt discloses the concept of using such a curve to control
the dewatering of a fibrous material. As discussed above, Beselt discloses
using multiple moisture sensors placed along the machine direction to
control multiple dryer sections along the machine direction, with each
moisture sensor controlling a separate dryer section. In order to control a
dryer section, a moisture-content setpoint for that section is necessary, and
the set of these setpoints would form a curve defined along the machine
direction. Thus, given the disclosure of multiple sensors, multiple drying
Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

10
elements, and control of each drying element by a sensor in Beselt, we find
that one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately comprehend that
Beselt discloses the concept of using a dewatering curve—i.e., a curve of
desired moisture content along the machine direction—to control the
dewatering of fibrous material. We therefore agree with the Examiner that
Beselt discloses the claim limitation of “the dewatering apparatus being
configured to dewater the fibrous material dependent upon a dewatering
curve defined in a machine direction.”

C. Conclusion
As discussed above, we find that the evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s findings that all limitations disputed by Appellants are indeed
disclosed in Beselt. Accordingly, we must affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 and 12–16 as anticipated by Beselt. Because the Appellants’
only disagreement with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4–11 is that
the Examiner erred by finding that the limitations of claim 1 (from which
claims 2 and 4–11 depend) were disclosed in Beselt, we must affirm that
rejection as well.

D. Order
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 12–16, and we affirm the
rejection of claims 2 and 4–11.

Appeal 2012-011419
Application 12/364,770

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED

bar