Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2018

13846848 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018)

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.
13/846,848 03/18/2013 Alfred Alexander TAYLOR 068559-008700US-0868586 9570
20350 7590 03/05/2018
KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P
EXAMINER
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
RUSHIN, LESTER III
Suite 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Atlanta, UA 5U5UV 3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFRED ALEXANDER TAYLOR
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,8481
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is “TNA Australia Pty
Limited.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,848
According to Appellant, the invention relates “to conveyor assemblies
that deliver product to be contained in bags.” Spec. 11. Below, we
reproduce claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, as illustrative of
the appealed claims.
1. A conveyor assembly to convey product, the
product having different sizes, the assembly comprising:
a first slip conveyor having a first longitudinally extending
conveyor surface along which the product being conveyed moves
in a first direction longitudinally of the first conveyor;
a second slip conveyor, the second conveyor having a
second longitudinally extending conveyor surface along which
the product being conveyed is moved in a second direction
longitudinally of the second conveyor, the second conveyor
including a plurality of conveyor segments, the segments being
arranged in series longitudinally of the second conveyor, the
segments having end portions being operable to provide a
plurality of gaps through which product is delivered from the
second conveyor, the gaps being arranged at spaced portions
along the second conveyor; and wherein
the first conveyor has a delivery portion above an
upstream portion of the second conveyor, that extends transverse
of the second conveyor, with the delivery portion having a
plurality of slots extending longitudinally of the first conveyor,
each slot having a transverse width, with the width of each slot
increasing in said first direction, or the widths of the slots
increasing in said first direction, so that the product is distributed
transversely of the second conveyor according to the product
sizes, with the gaps configured to select product of a size to be
delivered through each gap.
2
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,848
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walz (CA 1 227 165 A, pub. Sept. 22, 1987), Crawford
(US 7,475,767 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2009), and Spence (US 8,297,446 B2, iss.
Oct. 30, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Final
Office Action and Answer, and Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief,
Appellant persuades us that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1—20 based on Walz, Crawford, and Spence is in error. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner determines that
although the combination of Walz and Crawford fails to teach gaps in a
second conveyor “arranged at spaced portions along the second conveyor . . .
so that the product is distributed transversely of the second conveyor
according to the product sizes,” as claimed,
Spence discloses being operable to provide a plurality of gaps
through which product is delivered, the gaps being arranged at
spaced portions along the second conveyor, see Abstract, sorting
compartments arranged under the sorting track so that the
product is distributed transversely of the second conveyor
according to the product sizes, with the gaps configured to select
product of a size to be delivered through each gap, see Abstract,
last sentence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to modify Walz, Crawfordf,]
and Spence[,] with the teachings of Spence[,] to provide an
efficient delivery point for the articles to the second conveyor.
Final Action 4.
3
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,848
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
providing Spence’s graduated opening in the second conveyor
would render the delivery portion and slots of claim 1
meaningless, since Spence’s opening would not need the
transverse sorting provided by the slots of delivery portion of the
first conveyor in order to operate as intended. . . . Spence’s
continuous graduated opening is designed to sort articles
received at random from the input hopper. Thus, it would be
redundant to use Spence’s graduated opening if product was
already delivered transversely of the second conveyor according
to size as claim 1 requires.
Appeal Br. 14—15. Restated, Appellant argues that because Spence’s
arrangement sorts an unsorted stream of items, there would have been no
reason to modify Walz and Crawford based on Spence’s arrangement, as the
combination of Walz and Crawford provides a stream of sorted items.
Based on our review, we agree with Appellant.
Walz discloses a system of two conveyors, where the second
conveyor is below the first and travels in a transverse direction, and where
[t]he second conveyor has a plurality of parallel conveyor
channels oriented generally in the second conveying direction.
The apparatus further has a mechanism which effects a relative
displacement between the discharge end of the first conveyor and
the conveyor channels of the second conveyor in a direction
transverse to the second conveying direction for transferring
articles from the discharge end to selective conveyor channels.
Walz Abstract, cited at Final Action 3. More specifically, Walz describes
two embodiments to effect the relative displacement between the conveyor
positions, when distributing articles transversely across the second conveyor.
In the first embodiment, the “transfer edge 3 is displaceable parallel to . . .
conveying direction 4 of. . . belt 2[,] so that. . . transfer edge 3 may be
brought into alignment with selected channels 21 [,] and[,] thus[,] . . . belt 2
4
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,848
may charge each channel 21 with articles.” Walz 5,11. 14—17. Restated, in
this embodiment, the first conveyor’s discharge end moves back and forth to
discharge items to different channels in the second conveyor that is below
the first conveyor. In Walz’s second embodiment, the first conveyor’s
transfer edge “remains stationary,” but the portion of the second conveyor
under the first conveyor’s transfer edge moves back and forth “transversely
to the conveying direction.” Id. at 7,11. 16—26. Restated, in the second
embodiment, the second conveyor moves beneath the fixed discharge end of
the first conveyor.
Crawford teaches “a metering gate assembly configured to selectively
meter and divert articles” by gravity from a first vibrating conveyor to a
second through a movable, metering gate. Crawford 2,11. 30-35. Crawford
discloses an embodiment of metering gate with multiple triangle-shaped
openings, where the narrow end of the triangle is positioned upstream on the
first conveyor, and the wide end of the triangle is positioned downstream.
Id. at Fig. 7.
Spence is directed to “sorting ammunition casings,” and discloses that
[v]i brat ion moves the casings from the input hopper to the sorting
track, and as the casings move along the sorting track, smaller
diameter casings fall through a first opening portion into a first
sorting compartment, and larger diameter casings move along the
sorting track past the first opening portion and subsequently fall
though a second opening portion into a second sorting
compartment thereby separating the ammunition into different
calibers.
Spence, Abstract.
The Examiner’s reasoning is that it would be obvious to modify Walz’
conveyor transfer edge to include Crawford slide plate, with multiple,
5
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,848
transverse-positioned triangle openings, so that the combination sorts items
by size as they fall to the second conveyor below, “to provide an efficient
delivery point for the articles to the second conveyor.” Final Action 4; see
also Answer 2—3 (“Crawford is worded differently from . . . claim [1,] but
they both serve the same basic function, edges joined together to ‘provide a
distinct pattern of article distribution. ’ . . . Put another way, because
Crawford discloses the same structure it too can be said to be ‘configured to’
do the same thing . . . [that] claim [1 recites—i.e., select product of a size to
be delivered through each gap].”). Then, the Examiner reasons, it would be
obvious to modify the combination of Walz and Crawford to include
Spence’s single-channel sorting mechanism, “to provide an efficient delivery
point for the articles [from] the second conveyor.” Final Action 4.
We do not sustain the rejection because the Examiner does not
provide an adequate reason with the required rational underpinning to
modify the Walz and Crawford based on Spence. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“‘[Rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”). As discussed above, Spence
sorts items that are in a single, unsorted stream, using a slot with
progressively-increasing width, so small items fall first, and larger items fall
later, along the conveyor. Spence, Abstract. The Examiner does not
establish why one would have used Spence’s sorting mechanism, which is
used to sort an unsorted stream of items, with an arrangement based on Walz
and Crawford, which provides a sorted stream of items.
6
Appeal 2017-005953
Application 13/846,848
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 2—20 that depend from claim 1 and which the Examiner rejects based
on the same references as claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7