Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

14186769 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/186,769 02/21/2014
76656 7590
Patent Docket Department
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
02/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul D. Taylor
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.
9435-29 2318
EXAMINER
SINGH, KA VEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2016 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExpartePAULD. TAYLOR
Appeal2016-000237
Application 14/186,769 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[t]he present disclosure relates generally to
buckets for a bucket elevator and, more particularly, to a bucket adapted to
be spaced relatively close to adjacent buckets and having sides with a
contoured upper edge to facilitate carrying material above the water level
capacity of the bucket." Spec. i-f 1.
1 According to Appellant, Tapco, Inc. is the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2016-000237
Application 14/186,769
CLAHvIS
Claims 1-21 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A bucket for a bucket elevator comprising a bottom wall,
a back wall, a front wall and a pair of opposed side walls
collectively defining an interior chamber, each of the side walls
having a contoured upper edge to facilitate carrying material
above the water level capacity of the bucket, the bucket being
adapted for spacing relative to an adjacent bucket less than the
nominal projection of the bucket.
App. Br. 19.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 and 19-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Dobranski, 2 in view of Clark. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rinner, 4 in view of Clark.
DISCUSSION
1. Dobranski in view of Clark
Appellant addresses each of independent claims 1, 7, and 19
separately with respect to this rejection. See App. Br. 26-36. To the extent
necessary, we address these claims separately below.
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 19, the rejection states:
Dorbranski [sic] teaches a bucket 10 for a bucket elevator 12
comprising a bottom wall 26, a back wall 22, a front wall 24
and a pair of opposed side walls 30 collectively defining an
2 Dobranksi, US 6,695,127 Bl, iss. Feb. 24, 2004.
3 Clark, US 5,526,922, iss. June 18, 1996.
4 Rinner, US 5,143,203, iss. Sept. 1, 1992.
2
Appeal2016-000237
Application 14/186,769
interior chamber, each of the side walls 30 having a contoured
upper edge 32 to facilitate carrying material above the water
level capacity of the bucket 10, the bucket 10 being adapted for
spacing less than the nominal projection of the bucket 10 C4
L28-40, but Clark teaches the bucket being adapted for spacing
relative to an adjacent bucket less than the nominal projection
of the bucket Fig. 1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill
to use the arrangement of the buckets of DClark [sic] into the
invention of Dorbranski [sic] as a part of the transport.
Final Action 3. In an advisory action, the Examiner finds:
The spacing of Clark would be obvious to one of ordinary skill
to use into the invention of Dorbranski in that Clark specifies It
[sic] can be seen then, that an improved bucket is needed which
can be used with a belt conveyor and would solve problems
relating to spillage at apexes or inclined angles. In addition,
such a bucket should be easily mounted on belts and flow
smoothly over bogies. The utility of such a conveyor would be
increased further if it provides for reloading materials spilled on
lower levels when the buckets are inverted and which can
provide for wear without damage to the bucket and which does
not wear the surrounding machinery or covering.
Advisory Action 2. Finally, in response to Appellant's arguments, the
Examiner finds that Clark discloses a configuration in which the buckets can
be closely spaced and concludes it would have been obvious "to use the
spacing as specified by Clark into the invention of Dorbranski [sic] to allow
the ease of transport and retain the material in the buckets." Ans. 3.
Although the foregoing shows that the Examiner has made several
attempts at articulating a rationale for combining Dobranski' s buckets with
the spacing taught by Clark, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
failed to set forth an adequate rationale or explanation for the combination
proposed. See App. Br. 6-8. Specifically, the Examiner has failed to
provide any explanation as to how altering the space between Dobranski' s
3
Appeal2016-000237
Application 14/186,769
buckets would achieve the alleged advantages of such spacing asserted by
the Examiner. Further, the Examiner has only proposed to adjust the
spacing between Dobranski' s buckets. However, we construe "the bucket
being adapted for spacing relative to an adjacent bucket less than the
nominal projection of the bucket," as recited in claim 1, to be directed to the
shape of the claimed bucket. Although the spacing between buckets is
relevant to the claimed subject matter, it is not the entirety of the
construction of that limitation. The Examiner has not made a finding
regarding the shape of a bucket in the proposed combination, including
whether the bucket is "adapted for spacing relative to an adjacent bucket less
than the nominal projection of the bucket" as required by claim 1 and
similarly required by claim 7. Specifically, the Examiner does not find that,
or explain how, a reduction in spacing between the buckets in Dobranski
would meet the requirements of the claim. For these reasons, we determine
that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing of
obviousness with respect to independent claims 1 and 7. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 or claims 2---6 and 8-12.
With respect to independent claim 19, we note that this does not
include a limitation regarding the spacing of buckets. However, claim 19
includes the method step of "forming a bucket blank using an injection
molding process." We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to
make any findings regarding this limitation, including whether the method
step is taught or suggested by the combination of Dobranski and Clark. See
App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 1-2. Thus, on the record before us, we are
constrained to conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 19. Accordingly, we do
4
Appeal2016-000237
Application 14/186,769
not sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 or dependent claims 20 and
21.
2. Hinner in view of Clark
With respect to claim 13, the Examiner finds that Rinner discloses a
bucket elevator as claimed except that Rinner does not disclose that the
buckets are "configured such that centrifugal force is able to throw material
out of the bucket and out of the housing through the outlet." Final Action 4--
5. The Examiner finds that Clark teaches buckets so configured and
concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use
the arrangement of buckets of [Clark] into the invention of [Rinner] as a part
of the transport."5 Id. at 5. Additionally, in response to Appellant's
arguments, the Examiner finds that Rinner discloses rotation of the buckets
along a conveyor and necessarily teaches a centrifugal bucket elevator
because "[c]entrifugal force is an outward force apparent in a rotating
reference frame." Ans. 3--4.
Appellant argues, among other things, that the Examiner has provided
only a conclusory statement regarding why it would have been obvious to
combine Rinner and Clark to meet the requirement of claim 13. App.
Br. 16. We agree. The Examiner states only that the combination would be
obvious "as part of the transport" without further explanation. Final
Action 5. This statement fails to provide an adequate reason with rational
underpinnings to support the Examiner's conclusion regarding obviousness.
With respect to the Examiner's further reliance on Rinner in the Answer, we
5 Although the Final Action refers to Dobranski instead of Rinner, we
consider this to be an inadvertent error by the Examiner because we find that
the rejection is clearly directed to the combination of Rinner and Clark.
5
Appeal2016-000237
Application 14/186,769
note that the Examiner has failed to make a specific finding that Rinner
discloses buckets configured as claimed, and, as noted above, the Examiner
previously found that Rinner does not disclose buckets configured as
claimed. Further, the Examiner has failed to explain how this interpretation
of Rinner in the Answer supports the Examiner's conclusion regarding
obviousness in the Final Action. See Ans. 3--4. For these reasons, on the
record before us, we are constrained to conclude that the Examiner has failed
to set forth a prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 13.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 or dependent
claims 14--18.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above we reverse the rejection of claims 1-
21.
REVERSED
6