11629189 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2011)

Ex Parte Strasser

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 20, 2011

11629189 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2011)

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. 11/629,189 12/11/2006 Thomas Strasser R.310521 1957 2119 7590 09/20/2011 RONALD E. GREIGG GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. 1423 POWHATAN STREET, UNIT ONE ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte THOMAS STRASSER ____________________ Appeal 2009-011692 Application 11/629,189 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011692 Application 11/629,189 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Thomas Strasser (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 18-23, 28 and 30-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to sealing a packaging tube, filled with products, having a transverse sealing unit (Spec. 1, 3: paras. [0002] and [0012]). Claim 18, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 18. An apparatus for transverse sealing of a packaging tube, filled with products, in order to form bag packages, the apparatus comprising a delivery conveyor for delivering the packaging tube in a conveying direction along a conveying path, a removal conveyor for carrying the bag packages away, a transverse sealing unit engaging an interstice between these two conveyors, and a supporting base which reaches beneath the bag packages from two diametrically opposed sides for supporting the bag packages at least in part at the transition through this interstice, wherein the supporting base comprises at least two support disks, and wherein each support disk has one axis of rotation which extends perpendicular to the conveying direction of the bag packages, the axis of rotation of one of the support disks being disposed outside of a side edge of the conveying path and the axis of rotation of another of the support disks being disposed outside an opposite side edge of the conveying path. Appeal 2009-011692 Application 11/629,189 3 THE REJECTION The following rejection by the Examiner is before us for review: Claims 18-23, 28 and 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nack (US 4,102,111, issued Jul. 25, 1978). ISSUE The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Nack describes a supporting base for supporting bag packages, as called for in independent claim 18, and similarly called for in independent claim 35 (App. Br. 11-12, see also Reply Br. 2). ANALYSIS Claim 18 calls for, inter alia, a supporting base which reaches beneath the bag packages for supporting the bag packages. Claim 35 similarly calls for, inter alia, the step of supporting packages by a supporting base which reaches under the bag packages. The Examiner found that in Nack, element 106 is a supporting base for supporting the bag packages, wherein the supporting base comprises at least two support disks 114, 118 (Ans. 3). The Examiner found the following: Applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these elements - the supporting base (40 & 40') of the gap compensation disk (4 & 4') in the Appellant's disclosure are reached into and directly under the package (B) - are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. (Ans. 8) (number bolding added). Appeal 2009-011692 Application 11/629,189 4 Appellant contends that in Nack, element 106, which the Examiner found is a supporting base, is a carrier that is located to the side of the web tube, and thus, does not support the bag package as called for in independent claims 18 and 35 (App. Br. 11-12, see also Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention calling for the supporting base reaching beneath the bag packages is incorrect. (Reply Br. 2, 5). We find that the words “beneath” and “under,” as called for in independent claims 18 and 35, when read in light of Appellant’s Specification is one of supporting the bag packages. Nack describes that articles are received within a web tube WT that is sealed to form a package P (col. 3, ll. 37-47 and col. 4, l. 10). In Nack, Figures 10, 12 and 14 show the carrier 106 and gears 114, 118 as being spaced from the web tube WT. Thus, we agree with Appellant that in Nack, neither carrier 106 nor gears 114, 118 support the web tube WT. Since Nack’s carrier 106 (found by the Examiner to be a supporting base) and Nack’s gears (found by the Examiner to be support disks) do not support the web tube WT, Nack does not (1) describe a supporting base for supporting the bag packages, as called for in independent claim 18, and (2) the step of supporting packages by a supporting base, as called for in independent claim 35. We reverse the rejection of independent claims 18 and 35 and dependent claims 19-23, 28, 30-34, 36 and 37. Appeal 2009-011692 Application 11/629,189 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner has erred in finding that Nack describes a supporting base for supporting bag packages, as called for in independent claim 18, and similarly called for in independent claim 35. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18-23, 28 and 30-37 is reversed. REVERSED mls