Ex Parte Veldkamp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

12257919 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRENT M. VELDKAMP
____________________

Appeal 2010-007637
Application 12/257,919
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007637
Application 12/257,919

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ranniger (US 6,086,470; iss. Jul. 11, 2000). App. Br. 2, 3. Claims 9-14
have been canceled, and claim 15 has been withdrawn. Id. at 2. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter:
1. A toothroll assembly for use with a device
for removing fat and skin from a meat part,
comprising:
a first section having an outer surface, the
first section adapted to rotate at a first surface
speed; and
a second section having an outer surface, the
second section adapted to rotate at a second
surface speed independent from the first surface
speed.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Ranniger discloses a toothroll assembly
comprising a “first section” (any one of 226-258) having an outer surface
and being adapted to rotate at a first surface speed, and a “second section”
(any one of 226-258) having an outer surface and being adapted to rotate at a
second surface speed independent from the first surface speed. Ans. 3. The
Examiner also found that each sub-assembly 226 of the toothroll assembly
has an outer surface that can pivot/rotate individually about follower
Appeal 2010-007637
Application 12/257,919

3
member 258, at its own rate of rotation. Id. (citing Ranniger, col. 14, ll. 35-
40; Figs. 20-21).
Appellant contends that Ranniger does not teach “a first section
having an outer surface, the first section adapted to rotate at a first surface
speed; and a second section having an outer surface, the second section
adapted to rotate at a second surface speed independent from the first surface
speed,” as claimed. App. Br. 4. Appellant contends that Ranniger’s units
226 are uniform with each other and are all driven by a common shaft 232,
and thus cannot rotate at surface speeds that are independent of each other.
App. Br. 5. Appellant contends that Ranniger discloses that “‘each unit (sub
assembly) 226 can pivot individually about driven shaft 230,’” but “the
pivoting of a unit does not anticipate rotating a first or second surface as
required by the claim.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Ranniger, col. 14, ll. 37-38; Figs.
20, 21). Appellant contends that the pivoting of a unit 226 does not change
the rotational surface speed of any sub-assembly 226, and every sub-
assembly 226 rotates at the exact same surface speed because all of the gears
are mechanically driven at the same rotational speed by the same shaft 230.
Id. at 2-3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Ranniger discloses all of the limitations
of claim 1. Ranniger discloses a skinning machine including a plurality of
tractor units 226. See Ranniger, col. 13, l. 66 – col. 14, l. 1; Fig. 19. Each
tractor unit 226 comprises a set of gears including a drive gear 238, follower
gear 242, idler gear 254, and feed gear 248 mounted to a frame 234. See
Ranniger, col. 14, ll. 17-32. Ranniger discloses that each drive gear 238 is
fixedly attached to the driven shaft 230, which is driven via a drive shaft
Appeal 2010-007637
Application 12/257,919

4
232, to rotate the drive gear 238 and, in turn, rotatably drive the follower
gear 242, idler gear 254, and feed gear 248. See Ranniger, col. 14, ll. 10-20,
32-35; Figs. 4, 18.
The Examiner found that the “pivoting” of the tractor units 226
described in Ranniger corresponds to the claimed “rotating” of a section of
the toothroll assembly. We understand the Examiner’s position to be that
the rate of pivoting of the individual tractor units 226 corresponds to the
claimed “surface speed,” and that pivoting of two individual tractor units
226 at different speeds meets the claimed limitation “the second section
adapted to rotate at a second surface speed independent from the first surface
speed.” See Ans. 5. The Examiner’s position appears to disregard the
rotational motion of the sets of gears of the respective tractor units 226
produced by rotating the shaft 230. In contrast, Appellant contends that the
rotational “surface speed” of each of Ranniger’s tractor units 226
corresponds to the rotational speed of its set of gears, while the “pivoting” of
the tractor units 226 described in Ranniger does not affect the rotational
“surface speed.”
We determine the scope of claims not solely based on the claim
language, but upon giving claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” and “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). Claim 1 recites “a first
section” and “a second section.” Appellant indicates that the claimed “first
section” corresponds to the first section 38, and the “second section”
corresponds to the second section 44. See App. Br. 2-3. This indication is
consistent with Appellant’s Specification. For example, the first and second
Appeal 2010-007637
Application 12/257,919

5
sections 38 and 44 are described as sections of the embodiments of the
toothroll 18 shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 of Appellant’s application. See
also Spec. 4, ll. 14-19; 5, ll. 31-33. We are unable to locate any disclosure
in the Specification where the term “section” is described in relation to any
portion of the toothroll assembly other than the toothroll. Accordingly, we
construe the terms “first section” and “second section” as sections of a
toothroll of the claimed toothroll assembly.
Regarding the claim term “surface speed,” while Appellant has not
directed us to a specific definition of this term in the Specification, the
Specification provides sufficient guidance as to its meaning in the context of
the claim language. Particularly, the Specification describes removing fat
and skin from a meat part by driving the toothroll to engage and rotate the
meat part relative to the trimming blade assembly. See Spec. 8, ll. 9-16.
The first and second sections of the toothroll are rotated simultaneously at
first and second surface speeds that are independent from each other. See
Spec. 8, ll. 16-21. Figure 2 of Appellant’s application depicts the first
section 38 having an outer surface 40, and the second section 44 having an
outer surface 46. See Spec. 4, ll. 14-19. Reading the claim term “surface
speed” in light of the Specification, it is sufficiently clear that the “first
surface speed” and “second surface speed” are the speeds of the outer
surfaces of the respective first and second sections during the rotation of
these sections.
The Examiner made no finding that any one of Ranniger’s tractor
units 226 includes a particular “surface” having a “surface speed,” as
claimed. Rather, the Examiner found that the “surface speed” of the
respective tractor units 226 corresponds to the “rate of rotation” of the
Appeal 2010-007637
Application 12/257,919

6
individual tractor units 226 (which would appear to include the entire
structure of each tractor unit 226 that pivots) during the “pivoting”
movement described in Ranniger. We agree with Appellant that the
appropriate finding with respect to Ranniger’s apparatus is the rotational
speed of the sets of toothed gears of the respective tractor units 226. We
also agree with Appellant that because Ranniger discloses that these sets of
gears of the respective tractor units 226 have the same diameter and are all
driven by rotation of the same shaft 230, the gears of different tractor units
226 do not rotate independently from each other, but rotate simultaneously
at the same rotational speed, and thus the same “surface speed.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and its
dependent claims 2-8.
Claim 16 is directed to a device for removing fat and skin from a meat
part comprising “a toothroll assembly having a first section with an outer
surface, a second section having an outer surface, the first section adapted to
rotate at a first surface speed, and the second section adapted to rotate at a
second surface speed independent from the first surface speed.” We do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16, and its dependent claims 17-22, for similar
reasons as those discussed in relation to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 16-22 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

babc