Ex Parte Vaughn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11384114 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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.
11/384,114 03/17/2006 Jeffrey Moss Vaughn 10335 8665
27752 7590 11/01/2012
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global Legal Department - IP
Sycamore Building - 4th Floor
299 East Sixth Street
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KIM, SANG K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2012 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 JEFFREY MOSS VAUGHN, KEVIN BENSON MCNEIL, and
MICHAEL JAMES GWOREK
___________

Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES N. GREENHUT and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeffrey Moss Vaughn et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 20. Claim 19 has
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b). We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a process for converting large rolls of
wound web material into a finally wound product. Spec. 1, ll. 4-5 and fig. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for rewinding a web material, said method
comprising the steps of:
disposing said web material on a winding spindle, said
winding spindle being disposed upon and operatively associated
with a winding turret;
cooperatively engaging a contact roll with said winding
spindle when said web material is disposed therebetween, said
contact roll being disposed upon and operatively
associated with said winding turret; and,
adjusting the position of said contact roll upon said winding
turret relative to said winding spindle according to a desired
wind profile of said web material as said web material
is being disposed upon said winding spindle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Forman
Brandon
Yamaguchi
Hould
US 4,541,583
US 5,190,232
US 5,335,869
US 5,845,867
Sep. 17, 1985
Mar. 2, 1993
Aug. 9, 1994
Dec. 8, 1998
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
3
REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-18 and 20 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending
Application No. 11/384,105 (“‘105 application”). (Now US
7,559,503 B2, issued Jul. 14, 2009).
II. Claims 1-6, 13-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Brandon.
III. Claims 1-10, 13-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Forman and Brandon.
IV. Claims 1-6, 13-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Hould and Brandon.
V. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Forman, Brandon and Yamaguchi.
VI. Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandon and Yamaguchi.
VII. Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hould, Brandon and Yamaguchi.

1 As pointed out by the Examiner, under Grounds of Rejection to be
Reviewed on Appeal (see Ans. 3-4), Appellants have not presented any
arguments directed to rejections (V)-(VII). Accordingly, Appellants
have waived any arguments that could have been made with respect to these
rejections, and the rejections are summarily sustained. Ex Parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing Hyatt v. Dudas, 551
F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008), for the proposition that the Board may
treat arguments appellant failed to make as waived).
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
4
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-18 and 20 on the basis
of obviousness-type double patenting in view of then-pending claims 1-20
of the ‘105 application. Ans. 4-5. Since institution of these rejections,
applicants in the ‘105 application have amended independent claims 1, 15
and 20. The ‘105 application subsequently issued as US 7,559,503 B2
(“‘503 patent”) on Jul. 14, 2009. Because the circumstances surrounding the
co-pending ‘105 application have changed since institution of the double
patenting rejection in the instant ‘114 application, we decline to reach the
rejection, and leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is still proper in light of the
issued claims of the ‘503 patent and the guidance provided in MPEP § 804.
See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Rejection II
Independent claim 1 recites a method for rewinding a web material
including the step of “adjusting the position of said contact roll upon said
winding turret relative to said winding spindle according to a desired wind
profile of said web material as said web material is being disposed upon said
winding spindle.” Br., Claims Appendix.
The Examiner found that Brandon teaches a method for rewinding a
web material 2 including the method steps of disposing web material 2 on a
winding spindle 22, 24, the winding spindle 22, 24 being disposed upon and
operatively associated with a winding turret 32, cooperatively engaging a
contact roll 34, 36, 86 with the winding spindle 22, 24 when the web
material 2 is disposed therebetween, the contact roll 34, 36, 86 being
disposed upon and operatively associated with the winding turret 32; and
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
5
adjusting the position of the contact roll 34, 36, 86 upon the winding turret
32 relative to the winding spindle 22, 24 according to a desired wind profile
of the web material 2 (i.e., by moving the contact roller along the path and
using moving means 104) as the web material 2 is being disposed upon the
winding spindle 22, 24. Ans. 6. See also, Brandon, figs. 6-11.
Appellants argue Brandon fails to teach or suggest a desired wind
profile, as required by claim 1. Br. 5. According to Appellants, (1) Figure
11 of Brandon “merely provides an exemplary resulting movement of the
first rider or wind-up lay-on roll assembly relative to growth of the roll
associated with the first core as the diameter of the material increases” (Id.);
(2) Brandon “seeks to maintain constant pressure [i.e., uniform contact
force] upon the surface of the winding core. This position is bolstered by the
fact that four sensors 96 are adapted to sense force in two perpendicular
directions, both directions perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the wind-
up lay-on roll 86” (Id.); and (3) Brandon fails to teach or suggest “providing
the first rider or wind-up lay-on roll assembly 34 or the second rider or
wind-up lay-on roll assembly 36 with a wind profile. The only requirement
is that the two assemblies provide uniform contact force across the width of
the web” (Br. 6). See also, Brandon, col. 5, ll. 1-10, col. 6, ll. 12-38 and col.
7, ll. 65-68.
Appellants do not identify any formal definition or clear disclaimer in
the Specification which might narrow the meaning of the phrase “desired
wind profile” as used in claim 1 as opposed to the ordinary meaning of the
phrase. The Examiner is entitled to interpret a claim limitation broadly,
subject to the understanding one of ordinary skill in the art would have of
the term, and also taking note of the usage of the term in the specification,
particularly if the specification explicitly defines a term. See, e.g., In re Am.
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
6
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“claims …
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification” and “should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Absent an express definition in their specification,
the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to
their interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition unreasonable”); see
also, e.g., In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969) (applicant has
the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad
interpretation reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be
interpreted more broadly than is justified); In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“as applicants may amend
claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates
no unfairness to the applicant or patentee”).
In this case, the Examiner interprets “desired wind profile” to mean
that contact roll (e.g., 86) of Brandon adjusts positions (i.e., moves along the
path at 72, 74, 76, 78) according to a desired wind profile of web material 2
at each position (i.e., at 72, 74, 76, 78) along the path. See Ans. 6 and 13.
See also, Brandon, fig. 11. This interpretation is consistent with the plain
meaning of the phrase, in our view, and does not appear inconsistent with its
usage in the Specification. We have not been apprised of any evidence or
persuasive reasoning to the contrary.
Moreover, we find that Brandon’s teaching that the first and second
rider rolls (lay-on rolls) 34 and 36, respectively, provide uniform contact
force across the width of the web (see Brandon, col. 5, ll. 1-10), as
Appellants contend, actually supports maintaining a desired wind profile of
web material 2. Specifically, the first and second rider rolls (lay-on rolls)
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
7
34, 36 providing uniform contact force across the width of the web enables a
uniformly wound product (i.e., a desired wind profile of web material 2) to
be maintained at each position (i.e., at 72, 74, 76, 78) along the path. The
claimed method does not require the position adjustment to result in a
different wind profile. As such, we conclude that the recitation “desired
wind profile” in independent claim 1, when given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, does not in fact distinguish the subject matter of claim 1.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of independent
claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-6, 13-18 and 20 as anticipated
by Brandon is sustained.
Rejection III
The Examiner found that Forman discloses a method for rewinding a
web material 100 including a winding turret 14, a plurality of winding
spindles 21-24, a plurality of contact rollers (i.e., 30 and 45 having rollers)
disposed adjacent to at least one of the spindles, wherein each contact roller
is adjustable relative to the at least one spindle and provides a desired
pressure by moving in and out. Ans. 7. See also, Forman, figs. 2 and 5A-
5D. The Examiner turned to Brandon for disclosing a plurality of contact
rollers (i.e. 34, 36, 86) and winding spindles operatively disposed upon a
winding turret 32. Id. See also, Brandon, figs. 6-11. The Examiner
concluded it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention “to modify the apparatus of Forman ‘583 by
placing the contact rollers onto the winding turret as taught by Brandon
‘232, to show that there are many different ways to attach the contact rollers
to the apparatus.” Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that Forman fails to teach or suggest “adjustment of
a contact roll relative to a winding spindle according to a desired wind
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
8
profile,” as required by claim 1. Br. 6. Appellants further argue (1) the lay-
on roller assembly of Forman is “not operatively disposed upon a winding
turret, as is required by Appellants’ claimed invention;” and (2) Brandon
fails to teach or suggest “providing a rider or wind-up lay-on assembly with
any type of wind profile.” Id.
Appellants’ first two arguments merely allege Forman lacks elements
that the Examiner relies on Brandon for and vice versa. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We further are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments because Appellants provide merely conclusory
statements without identifying any particular inadequacy in the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions. Appellants’ third argument has been addressed
above in our discussion of Rejection II.
Consequently, the rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective
dependent claims 2-10, 13-18 and 20 as unpatentable over Forman and
Brandon is sustained.
Rejection IV
The Examiner found that Hould discloses a method for rewinding a
web material 2 including a winding turret 10, a plurality of winding spindles
29, a plurality of contact rollers 50, 80 disposed adjacent to at least one of
the spindles, wherein each contact roller is adjustable relative to the at least
one spindle and provides a desired pressure by moving in and out. Ans. 8.
See also, Hould, figs. 3-6. The Examiner turned to Brandon for disclosing a
plurality of contact rollers (i.e. 34, 36, 86) and winding spindles operatively
disposed upon a winding turret 32. Ans. 9. See also, Brandon, figs. 6-11.
Appeal 2010-008194
Application 11/384,114
9
The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention “to modify the apparatus of Hould
‘867 by placing the contact rollers onto the winding turret as taught by
Brandon ‘232, to show that there are many different ways to attach the
contact rollers to the apparatus.” Id.
Appellants argue that Hould fails to teach or suggest “adjustment of a
contact roll relative to a winding spindle according to a desired wind
profile,” as required by claim 1. Br. 7. Appellants further argue that
Brandon fails to teach or suggest “providing for a rider or wind-up lay-on
assembly with any type of wind profile.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because again
Appellants appear to be attacking the references individually. We further
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because Appellants provide
merely conclusory statements without identifying any particular inadequacy
in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective
dependent claims 2-6, 13-18 and 20 as unpatentable over Hould and
Brandon is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed as to claims 1-18 and 20.
We do not reach the rejection of claims 1-18 and 20 based on obviousness-
type double patenting.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls