Ex Parte Stitz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2008

10148000 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALBERT STITZ
____________

Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: August 28, 2008
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, LINDA E. HORNER, and
JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Albert Stitz (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
final rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002). An oral hearing in this appeal was held on May 15, 2008, with
Robert W. Mueller, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellant.

Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

2
A rejection of claims 5 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by a patent to Scherer et al. was withdrawn in the Examiner’s
Answer, with the Examiner noting that a typographical error was the cause
for these claims being rejected on this basis. All of claims 1-31, however,
remain rejected on one or more grounds.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is to a process and apparatus for
damping vibrations in a winding machine. The invention is directed to
actively damping vibrational forces occurring in a vibration system with two
cylindrical bodies rolling on each other, due to imperfections such as out-of-
roundness or imbalance of one or both cylindrical bodies. The active
damping is effected by obtaining vibrational force measurements for each
rotation of one of the cylindrical bodies, and displacing an axis of rotation of
one of the cylindrical bodies in response to the vibrational force
measurements. In certain of the claims, the displacing of the axis of rotation
is effected by additional energy fed from outside the vibration system.
Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A process for damping vibrations in an
apparatus for winding for material webs, the
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

3
apparatus including at least two cylindrical bodies,
said process comprising:

positioning the at least two cylindrical bodies to
roll on each other to form a nip, whereby at least
one of imbalance and out-of-roundness of either of
the at least two cylindrical bodies form a system
capable of vibration; and

actively damping vibrational forces of the
vibration system in at least one of the at least two
cylindrical bodies through a displacing of an axis
of rotation of the at least one of the at least two
cylindrical bodies, in which the displacing results
from additional energy fed from outside of the
vibration system in response to a current one of a
plurality of vibrational force measurements made
per each rotation of the at least one of the at least
two cylindrical bodies.

14. An apparatus for damping vibrations in a
winding machine, comprising:

at least two cylindrical bodies being structured and
arranged for rotation about respective axes of
rotation;

displaceable bearings being coupled at ends of said
axis of rotation of at least one of said at least two
cylindrical bodies;

transducers being coupled to said displaceable
bearings;

Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

4
regulating units arranged to act on said
displaceable bearings; and

said regulating units being coupled to said
transducers to shift said displaceable bearings, and
thereby said axis of rotation, in response to a
current one of a plurality of vibrational force
measurements made per each rotation of said at
least one of said at least two cylindrical bodies by
said transducers.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Snygg US 4,095,755 June 20, 1978
Crouse US 4,171,106 Oct. 16, 1979
Scherer US 5,743,483 Apr. 28, 1998

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12-18, 20-22, and 24-31 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Snygg.
2. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 12-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Scherer.
3. Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Crouse.
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

5
4. Claims 5 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Snygg.
5. Claims 5 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Scherer.

ISSUES
A first issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in determining that claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12-18, 20-22, and 24-31
are anticipated by Snygg. A second issue before us is whether Appellant has
shown that the Examiner erred in determining that claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 12-
31 are anticipated by Scherer. A third issue before us is whether Appellant
has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that claims 25 and 26 are
anticipated by Crouse. A fourth issue before us is whether Appellant has
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 5 and 8-11 are
rendered obvious by either Snygg or Scherer. In large part (with claim 14
being the one exception), these issues all turn on whether the Snygg, Scherer
and Crouse patents disclose or suggest actively damping vibration that is
generated in a system in which two cylindrical bodies roll on each other in a
web winding apparatus, with the active damping being effected by
measuring vibrational forces generated, and, in response to those
measurements, displacing an axis of rotation of one of the two cylindrical
bodies.
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
FF 1. The Snygg patent discloses a web winding apparatus that
employs load sensing means 34 to measure and actively control the pressure
at the nip between two rolls. The sensing means operates in concert with a
regulating system 19 which includes a hydraulic circuit having a hydraulic
cylinder 31 and hydraulic pump 32 which are independent of the rolls
making up the vibration system, and which raise or lower one or more load
rollers 6 as necessary to maintain a uniform nip pressure. (Snygg, Figs. 1-4;
Col. 2, ll. 3-25).
FF 2. The load sensing means and regulating system in Snygg are not
disclosed as providing active damping of vibration in the system, nor are
they disclosed as being capable of providing such active damping.
FF 3. Vibration absorbers 11, 22, in the Snygg apparatus are passive
damping devices that operate in reaction to vibration or other forces that
they experience in operating the winding equipment. (Snygg, Figs. 1, 3, 4;
Col. 1, l. 64-Col. 2, l. 2; Col. 2, ll. 26-32).
FF 4. The vibration absorber 11 in Snygg operates independently of
the load sensing means. (Snygg, Figs. 1, 3)
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

7
FF 5. The Snygg patent discloses positioning both displaceable
bearings and load sensing transducers at and coupled to the two ends of an
axis of rotation of center load roll 6. (Snygg, Figs. 2-4; Col. 1, ll. 47-51;
Col. 2, ll. 17-25).
FF 6. The Snygg patent does not disclose measuring for imbalance or
out-of-roundness of a rotating cylindrical body, or using such measurements
to actively damp vibrational forces between rotating cylinders.
FF 7. In the Snygg system, when a vibrational energy condition of the
two cylindrical rolls changes, the change is manifested in a movement of
piston rod 13 (in the case of vibration absorber 11) or piston rod 26 (in the
case of vibration absorber 22). This movement results in an application of
energy by the hydraulic fluid contained in the vibration absorber, and the
reaction results directly from the momentary energy condition of the
vibration system. (Snygg, Figs. 1, 3; Col. 1, l. 64-Col. 2, l. 2; Col. 2, ll. 26-
32).
FF 8. In the Scherer patent, vibration in the system is damped by
biasing rollers 110, 120, 130, into contact with the winding roll, and
providing a particular level of hydraulic resistance to the retraction of these
rollers. (Scherer, Fig. 1; Col. 5, l. 67-Col. 6, l. 6).
FF 9. The Scherer patent does not disclose actively damping
vibrational forces by making a plurality of vibrational force measurements
per each rotation of a cylindrical body, and does not disclose displacing an
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

8
axis of one of the cylindrical bodies using energy from outside the vibration
system.
FF 10. Safety valve 295 in Scherer is normally closed, and is capable
of opening upon experiencing a predetermined extreme pressure in the fluid
circuit caused by an abnormal pressure condition at the nip between the
winding mandrel 20 and roller member 110. (Scherer, Fig. 3; Col. 6, l. 57-
Col. 7, l. 7).
FF 11. Scherer does not disclose that safety valve 295 is capable of
making ongoing vibrational force measurements to be used by regulating
units to shift the roller in order to damp vibrations on an ongoing basis.
FF 12. Scherer does not disclose measuring for imbalance or out-of-
roundness of one of the cylindrical bodies and using such measurements to
actively damp vibration.
FF 13. Cylinder 30 in Scherer operates to move roller member 110
away from mandrel 20 as the wound material on the mandrel increases the
diameter of that element, while maintaining the roller member at a
predetermined bias force against the mandrel and the material wound
thereon. (Scherer, Col. 4, ll. 15-48).
FF 14. The Crouse patent discloses an apparatus and process in which
a winding roll rolls against two carrying drums. The horizontal spacing
between the drums is controlled to be increased as the winding roll takes on
additional material and increases in diameter. Crouse teaches that roll
vibration tends to be damped by increased horizontal forces experienced on
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

9
the winding roll coming about as a result of the spacing between the drums
being increased. (Crouse, Figs. 3, 5; Col. 4, ll. 24-34).
FF 15. The controller 71 in Crouse operates to separate or increase
the horizontal spacing between the two drums, in accordance with a
predetermined control scheme. (Crouse, Fig. 4; Col. 4, ll. 39-41).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under principles of inherency, when a
reference is silent about an asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear
that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient. [Citations omitted.]
If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show
that the natural result flowing from the operation
as taught would result in the performance of the
questioned function, it seems to be well settled that
the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

10
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when the differences between
the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where
in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734 (Graham factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls).
Patent application claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during the application process, for the simple reason that
before a patent is granted the claims may be readily amended, for the
purpose of distinguishing cited references, or in response to objections raised
under § 112, as part of the examination process. Burlington Indus., Inc. v.
Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987). This broadest reasonable
construction is to be assessed in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, in making this
assessment, embodiments or features present in the specification will not be
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

11

read into the claims in determining their scope. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also In re Trans Texas
Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12-18, 20-22, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) in view of Snygg
Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 14, 25, and 27, are
separately patentable from one another, and we will address each of these
claims separately.
Appellant’s Brief on Appeal purports to also separately argue the
patentability of each dependent claim.1 Under the heading for each of the
dependent claims, however, Appellant simply restates the element(s) or
limitation(s) found in these claims, and avers that such elements or
limitations are not found in the Snygg patent. Presenting a statement which
merely points out what a claim recites is not considered to be an argument
for the separate patentability of the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007). We will therefore treat the dependent claims as being grouped with
the respective independent claim from which each depends. To the extent
that Appellant’s bare assertions regarding the failure of the Snygg patent to
disclose these elements would be regarded as legitimate arguments for the

1 A separate heading for each claim is provided, a prerequisite under 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), for separately arguing a claim or claims.
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

12
separate patentability of the claims, Appellant does not persuasively
demonstrate where any error lies in the Examiner’s interpretation of Snygg
as it relates to the elements or limitations found in those claims.
Claim 1
Appellant urges that the rejection of claim 1, a process claim, as being
anticipated by Snygg is in error, because there is no disclosure in Snygg that
a plurality of vibrational force measurements are made per rotation of one of
the cylindrical bodies. Appellant also asserts that there is no disclosure of
actively damping the vibrational forces in response to the measurements
made, by displacing the rotational axis of at least one of the cylindrical
bodies. (Appeal Br. 15).
The Examiner counters that the Snygg patent discloses the use of a
load sensing means (34) that produces signals which are used to adjust the
positions of axle bearing brackets (8) to achieve a uniform nip pressure
between two rolls. (Answer 4). The Examiner acknowledges that Snygg
does not explicitly disclose the taking of a plurality of vibrational force
measurements per each rotation of one of the cylindrical bodies, asserting
instead that this “is inherently done during the constant winding” (id.), and
that, “[T]he reference does not have to explicitly state the limitation…”.
(Answer 10). The Examiner further cites to the use in Snygg of vibration
absorbers 11, 22, asserting that these act in concert with the load sensing
means to actively damp vibration. (Id.).
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

13
The Snygg apparatus does disclose employing a load sensing means
(34) to control the pressure at the nip between the rolls, using a regulating
system (19) including a hydraulic circuit that is independent of the rolls and
vibration system, to raise or lower one or more load rolls as necessary to
maintain a uniform nip pressure. (FF 1). However, the Examiner has not
pointed to, nor do we find in Snygg, any explicit teaching that this load
sensing means is used to perform, or is capable of performing, active
damping of vibration in the system. (FF 2).
The vibration absorbers (11, 22) in Snygg identified by the Examiner
as components contributing to the active damping of vibrations, are, in
actuality, passive dampers that simply react to and absorb forces experienced
as the winding process ensues. (FF 3). Contrary to the assertion made by
the Examiner (Answer 10), these vibration dampers operate independently
of the load sensing means 34. (FF 4).
Snygg thus lacks an explicit teaching of a process that includes
making a plurality of vibrational force measurements per each rotation of
one of the cylindrical bodies, and actively damping those vibrational forces
by displacing an axis of rotation of the cylindrical body in response to the
measured forces. To the extent that these claim features are asserted to be
inherent in the Snygg apparatus, we note that inherency may not be founded
on possibilities or probabilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581. We find that
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case that these claim
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

14
elements are necessarily present in the Snygg apparatus, or are necessarily
performed in the operation of the Snygg apparatus.
We are therefore persuaded that error exists in the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Snygg. We will reverse the rejection of
claim 1, and that of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 12, and 13, which depend from claim 1.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus for damping vibrations in a
winding machine. Appellant presents essentially the same arguments as are
presented in attempting to distinguish claim 1 from the Snygg disclosure.
Appellant first argues that the Snygg patent fails to provide any
disclosure of making a plurality of vibrational force measurements per
rotation, and fails to disclose actively damping such measured vibrations.
(Appeal Br. 18). Unlike claim 1, however, apparatus claim 14 calls only for
the provision of “transducers”, whose apparent desired or intended function
is to make a plurality of vibrational force measurements per rotation.
(Appeal Br., Claims Appendix). The language of claim 14, however,
contains no positive limitations to that effect. Claim 14 further is devoid of
any structural limitations that distinguish the apparatus from the Snygg
apparatus in terms of providing active damping of vibrational forces.
Appellant’s arguments in these respects are thus unavailing, as they are not
commensurate in scope with the claims.
Appellant further contends that the Snygg patent does not disclose a
device for measuring vibrational forces. (Appeal Br. 19). As noted above,
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

15
Appellant, in claim 14, calls for the apparatus to have “transducers”, and
does not further define any structure which would distinguish this element
from the load sensing means (34) disclosed in Snygg, which is described as
being capable of measuring a load on the load rolls (6). Further, Appellant
acknowledges that at least one type of vibrational force that might be
generated results from a temporary increase in forces at a nip between two
rolls (Spec., p. 4-5, ¶[0015]). As such, the Snygg load sensors, which are
expressly provided to measure forces at a nip between two rolls (FF 1),
would indeed measure that type of vibrational force.
Appellant further asserts that the Snygg patent does not teach or
suggest providing load sensing means at the ends of a roll, but rather
discloses the placement of sensing means at the middle of a roll. (Appeal
Br. 21). We note first that claim 14 does not contain such a positional
limitation for the transducers recited therein. The claim requires
displaceable bearings to be coupled at the ends of the axis of rotation of one
cylindrical body, but requires only that the transducers be coupled to those
displaceable bearings, without specifying any required position for the
transducers. (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix). Furthermore, Snygg does
disclose placing displaceable bearings and transducers coupled to the two
ends of the axis of rotation of center load roll (6). (FF 5).
We are not persuaded that error exists in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Snygg. The rejection of claim
14, as well as that of claims 15-18, 20-22, and 24, that depend from claim 14
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

16
and were not separately argued (or, alternatively, were not persuasively
argued), will be affirmed.
Claim 25
Claim 25 is directed to a process for damping vibrations in an
apparatus for winding material webs, which includes a step of shifting a
rotational axis of at least one of two cylindrical bodies rolling on each other,
in response to measurements of either imbalance or out-of-roundness, or
both, in order to actively damp vibrational forces generated by the
cylindrical bodies. (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix).
As discussed in greater detail in our findings and conclusions with
respect to claim 1, supra, we are persuaded that the Snygg patent does not
explicitly or inherently disclose means for actively damping vibrational
forces generated by two cylindrical bodies rolling on each other. Further,
we find no explicit or implicit disclosure in Snygg of measuring imbalance
or out-of-roundness of at least one of the cylindrical bodies as a precursor to
any active damping of vibrational forces. (FF 6).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) in view of Snygg, nor the rejection of claim 26, which depends
from claim 25, as anticipated by Snygg.
Claim 27
Claim 27 is a further apparatus claim, which requires the presence of
“a device for actively damping the vibrational forces” in one of the two
recited cylindrical bodies. (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix). This device, as
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

17
claimed, includes regulators for applying energy independent of a
momentary energy condition of the vibrating cylindrical body or bodies.
(Id.).
The Examiner’s position is that the Snygg device is not structurally
different from the apparatus of claim 27, and that the hydraulic fluid utilized
by the vibration dampers of Snygg applies energy independently of a
momentary energy condition of the vibration system to effect damping
thereof. (Answer 13). Appellant argues, in part, that the vibration absorbers
and the hydraulic fluid employed by the vibration absorbers in Snygg form
part of the vibration system of Snygg, and therefore the energy supplied by
the hydraulic fluid can not be applied independently of a momentary energy
condition of the system. (Appeal Br. 28). The Examiner apparently agrees
that the hydraulic fluid used by the vibration absorbers of Snygg form a part
of the vibration system as a whole. (Answer 13).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s analysis. Any energy applied by the
hydraulic fluid in the vibration absorbers 11, 22, of Snygg, is as a direct
result of, and is in reaction to, the momentary energy of the vibration
system. (FF 3). That is, when a vibrational energy condition of the two
cylindrical rolls changes, the change is manifested in a movement of piston
rod 13 (for vibration absorber 11) or piston rod 26 (for vibration absorber
22), which brings about an application of energy by the hydraulic fluid
contained in the vibration absorber. This reaction is not independent of the
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

18
momentary energy condition of the vibration system, rather it is a direct
byproduct thereof. (FF 7).
We find that the apparatus of claim 27 is not anticipated by the
disclosure of the Snygg patent, and will reverse the rejection of claim 27,
and claims 28-31 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of
Snygg.

Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 12-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Scherer
Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 14, 25, and 27, are
separately patentable from one another (Appeal Br. 48-60), and we will
address each of these claims separately.
As with the rejection of the claims in view of Snygg addressed
above, Appellant’s Brief on Appeal purports to also separately argue the
patentability of each dependent claim. Under the heading for each of the
dependent claims, however, Appellant simply restates the element(s) or
limitation(s) found in these claims, and avers that such elements or
limitations are not found in the Scherer patent. Presenting a statement
which merely points out what a claim recites is not considered to be
an argument for the separate patentability of the claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2007). We will therefore treat the dependent claims as
being grouped with the respective independent claim from which each
depends. To the extent that Appellant’s bare assertions regarding the failure
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

19
of the Scherer patent to disclose these elements would be regarded as
legitimate arguments for the separate patentability of the claims, Appellant
does not persuasively demonstrate where any error lies in the Examiner’s
interpretation of Scherer as it relates to the elements or limitations found in
those claims.
Claim 1
The Examiner asserts that active damping of vibrational forces is
provided in the Scherer apparatus by displacing the axis or axes of rollers
110, 120, and 130 through operation of a hydraulic cylinder(s) and piston(s).
(Answer 14). It is further asserted that the displacing of the roller or
rollers is in response to a current one of a plurality of vibrational force
measurements made per each rotation, which is an inherent characteristic of
controlling the rollers 110, 120, 130, during the constant winding process.
(Id.).
Appellant concurs that the Scherer apparatus employs these roller
members 110, 120, 130, in order to control or prevent vibrations during
winding. (Appeal Br. 49). Appellant argues that vibration control is
effected by biasing the roller members against the winding roll. (Id.).
Appellant further asserts that the sole reason for displacing the rollers in
Scherer is to adjust for the increasing diameter of the wound roll. (Appeal
Br. 51). Appellant contends that, in any event, the Scherer system does not
employ active vibration damping in response to current vibrational force
measurements. (Id.).
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

20
We agree with Appellant on this front. While the Examiner has
pointed to a disclosure that the positioning and control of the rollers is
performed such that there is sufficient hydraulic resistance to retraction of
the rollers, so that vibration is either prevented or substantially reduced
(Answer 14; FF 8), that falls far short of a disclosure of active damping of
vibrational forces as claimed. Specifically, we find no disclosure in Scherer
of actively damping vibrational forces by making a plurality of vibrational
force measurements per each rotation of the cylindrical body, and
displacing, using energy from outside the vibration system, an axis of at
least one of the rotating cylindrical bodies. (FF 9). We are further not
persuaded by the Examiner’s observations and reasoning that such aspects
are inherently performed in the operation of the Scherer apparatus.
We will reverse the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 12,
and 13 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Scherer.
Claim 14
Appellant argues that the Scherer patent fails to provide a disclosure
of transducers coupled to displaceable bearings, with the transducers being
capable of making a plurality of vibrational force measurements per rotation,
and fails to disclose actively damping such measured vibrations. (Appeal
Br. 53-54). The Examiner cites to safety valve 295 in fluid circuit 200
shown in Figure 3 of Scherer as corresponding to the claimed transducers.
(Answer 15). The safety valve in Scherer is disclosed as being normally
closed, and is capable of opening when a predetermined extreme pressure
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

21
condition is experienced as a result of an abnormal pressure condition at the
nip between the winding mandrel 20 and the roller member 110. (FF 10).
The Examiner asserts that this safety valve is coupled to displaceable
bearings 68 and regulating units 30, 50, in order to shift the bearings in
response to vibrational force measurements. (Answer 15).
We find the basis for the rejection to be lacking. Claim 14 calls for
the apparatus to have transducers (plural), to be coupled to displaceable
bearings at the ends of one of the cylindrical bodies, and regulating units to
be coupled to the transducers operable to shift the bearings in response to
measurements made by the transducers. The Scherer patent does not
disclose the provision of more than one transducer, even if we are to accept
the Examiner’s contention that the safety valve can be regarded as a
transducer. We further find that Scherer lacks any teaching that the safety
valve is capable of making ongoing vibrational force measurements, from
which the regulating units may shift the bearings, rather Scherer discloses
only that it is operable to open from a normally closed position when a
predetermined excessive pressure is experienced. (FF 11).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Scherer. The rejection of claims 15-18, 20-22, and 24, that
depend from claim 14, will also not be sustained.
Claim 25
As discussed in greater detail in our findings and conclusions with
respect to the Scherer patent and claim 1, supra, we are persuaded that the
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

22
Scherer patent does not explicitly or inherently disclose active damping of
vibrational forces generated by two cylindrical bodies rolling on each other.
Further, we find no explicit or implicit disclosure in Scherer of measuring
imbalance or out-of-roundness of at least one of the cylindrical bodies as a
precursor to any active damping of vibrational forces. (FF 12). Claim 25
specifically requires that these functions or steps be performed in the
claimed process.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) in view of Scherer, nor the rejection of claim 26, which depends
from claim 25, as anticipated by Scherer.
Claim 27
Claim 27 requires the presence of “a device for actively damping the
vibrational forces” in one of the two recited cylindrical bodies. (Appeal Br.,
Claims Appendix). This device, as claimed, includes regulators for applying
energy independent of a momentary energy condition of the vibrating
cylindrical body or bodies. (Id.).
The Examiner’s position is that the Scherer device is not structurally
different from the apparatus of claim 27. (Answer 16). Appellant points out
that the components relied upon by the Examiner in asserting that the claim
is anticipated operate as a passive system, and the piston/cylinder
combination asserted by the Examiner to be a regulator operates to change
the position of a roller to accommodate the increasing diameter of the roll on
which material is being wound, but does not actively damp vibrational
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

23
forces. (Appeal Br. 59; FF 13). We agree with Appellant that these
components of Scherer do not expressly or inherently disclose a device for
actively damping vibrational forces which employs regulators to apply
energy independent of the momentary energy condition of the vibrating
system, as called for in claim 27.
We find that the apparatus of claim 27 is not anticipated by the
disclosure of the Scherer patent, and will not sustain the rejection of claim
27, and of claims 28-31 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Scherer.
Rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of
Crouse
The Crouse patent discloses a process in which a winding roll rolls
against two carrying drums. The spacing between the drums is increased in
a predetermined and controlled manner to accommodate the increasing size
of the winding roll. Crouse states that roll vibration tends to be dampened
by increased horizontal forces imposed by the carrying drums on the
winding roll, the increased horizontal forces coming about as the spacing
between the drums is increased. (FF 14). The Examiner cites to the
presence of a controller employed in the Crouse device as evidencing that
the device performs active damping of vibration. (Answer 17).
Appellant argues that Crouse does not disclose a process, as set forth
in claim 25, in which the rotational axis of the one of the cylinders is shifted
in response to measurements of imbalance and out-of-roundness, to effect an
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

24
active damping of vibration. (Appeal Br. 86). We agree. The controller in
Crouse operates to increase the spacing between two carrying drums, and
Crouse discloses that this is done in a predetermined manner. (FF 15). The
Examiner has not pointed to, nor can we find in Crouse, a disclosure that
measurements of either imbalance or out-of-roundness are made and used to
change the position of one or both of the carrying drums.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Crouse.
Rejection of claims 5 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Snygg
Claims 5 and 8-11 depend either directly or indirectly from
independent claim 1. In rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner contends that, even though the features set forth in the claims are
not expressly or inherently disclosed in Snygg, the features would have been
obvious, for various reasons, to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Answer
35-38).
The Examiner’s reasoning in rejecting these claims fails to address the
deficiencies, discussed supra with respect to claim 1, of the Snygg patent in
disclosing or suggesting a process that includes making a plurality of
vibrational force measurements per each rotation of one of the cylindrical
bodies, and actively damping those vibrational forces by displacing an axis
of rotation of the cylindrical body in response to the measured forces, as is
set forth in these claims, as a result of their dependency from claim 1.
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

25
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 8-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Snygg.
Rejection of claims 5 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Scherer
Just as with the rejection discussed immediately above, the
Examiner’s reasoning in rejecting claims 5 and 8-11 in view of Scherer fails
to address the deficiencies, discussed supra with respect to claim 1, of the
Scherer patent in disclosing or suggesting a process in which vibrational
forces are actively damped by making a plurality of vibrational force
measurements per each rotation of the cylindrical body, and displacing,
using energy from outside the vibration system, an axis of at least one of the
rotating cylindrical bodies, as set forth in these claims, as a result of their
dependency from claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Scherer.

CONCLUSIONS
We find that reversible error has been shown to exist in the rejection
of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 25-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Snygg.
We find that no reversible error has been shown to exist in the
rejection of claims 14-18, 20-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Snygg.
Appeal 2007-4059
Application 10/148,000

26
We find that reversible error has been shown to exist in the rejection
of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 12-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Scherer.
We find that reversible error has been shown to exist in the rejection
of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Crouse.
We conclude that reversible error has been shown to exist in the
rejection of claims 5-8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of either Snygg or Scherer.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14-18, 20-22, and 24 is
affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13, 19, 23, and
25-31 is reversed.
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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JRG

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VIRGINIA 20191