Ex Parte Viaud

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 15, 2010

11611223 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 2010)

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.
11/611,223 12/15/2006 Jean Viaud 09593-US 4045
30689 7590 12/15/2010
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
PARADISO, JOHN ROGER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2010 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 JEAN VIAUD
____________

Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B. BARRETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jean Viaud (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is “a wrapping arrangement for the
enveloping of a bale with an enveloping material and including a propulsion
element.” Spec. 1:5-6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. In combination with a large round baler including a
baling chamber for forming large round bales and for bringing a
bale being formed into rotation at a first circumferential
velocity, a wrapping arrangement for enveloping a bale formed
in said chamber with an enveloping material, a supply of
enveloping material, a driven, cylindrical propulsion element
for withdrawing enveloping material from said supply, a drive
arrangement being coupled to said propulsion device and
including a clutch arrangement effectively connected with said
propulsion element for causing said propulsion element to have
a circumferential velocity which is less than said first
circumferential velocity, the improvement comprising:
said clutch arrangement including clutching components
being arranged in such a way that a predetermined tensioning
force acting upon the enveloping material, when grasped by the
rotating bale, remains at least generally constant at a value less
than that which would cause an excessive stretching of the
enveloping material regardless of a change in a difference
between said first circumferential velocity of said bale and said
circumferential velocity of said propulsion element.
Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223

3
THE REJECTION
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clostermeyer
(DE 36 34 571 A1; published April 14, 1988) and Stauber (US 5,495,700;
issued March 5, 1996).
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES
The Examiner found that Clostermeyer discloses the claimed baler
except that it “does not disclose keeping the tension constant or using a
clutch to do so.” Ans. 3. The Examiner found that Stauber “discloses a
machine for wrapping with a web (160) in which a clutch unit is used to help
keep the web at a constant tension.” Id. In particular, the Examiner found
that Stauber’s slip clutch, in combination with its spring members, are
considered a clutch arrangement. Ans. 7. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to modify the baler of Clostermeyer by adding a
clutch to keep the wrap tension constant, as taught by Stauber, in order to
provide more uniform bales. Ans. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner misconstrued the teaching of
Stauber. Br. 10. In particular, Appellant contends that the clutch-brake
disclosed by Stauber “is used only for effecting a drive connection between
a motor and the conveying roller for advancing the web of film from a
supply roll and not for producing a predetermined constant tension force in
the web of film 160.” Br. 11.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Stauber discloses, by a
preponderance of the evidence, a clutch arrangement including clutching
Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223

4
components being arranged in such a way that a predetermined tensioning
force acting upon the web material remains at least generally constant.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Stauber discloses an apparatus for processing printing products,
such as newspapers and periodicals, which includes a supply
device for a film-like retaining element. Stauber, col. 1, ll. 6-8;
col. 2, ll. 56-57.
2. The upper part of the supply device is shown in Figure 19, and the
lower part of the supply device is shown in Figure 20. Stauber,
col. 2, ll. 55-58; figs. 19, 20.
3. As shown in Figures 19 and 20, the film web 160 runs from a
rotatably mounted supply roller 172, to a deflecting roller 174, then
in a loop-like manner to a first idling roller 176, then around a
second conveying roller 178, then in a loop-like manner around a
second idling roller 180, and then to a deflecting roller 166.
Stauber, col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 6.
4. Stauber discloses that “[t]he two idling rollers 176 [and] 180 are
mounted freely displaceably in vertical guide members 182 and are
each connected to springs 184, which have a flat spring
characteristic in order to tension the film web 160 with an
approximately constant force.” Stauber, col. 8, ll. 6-10; fig. 20.
Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223

5
5. Stauber further discloses that a position sensor 194 emits a signal
to the control unit when the second idling roller 180 is in the lower
end region of the guide member 182. Stauber, col. 8, ll. 15-18;
fig. 19.
6. The control unit provides the connection of a second conveying
roller 178 via a clutch/brake unit (not visible) to the drive motor
132 if the position sensor 194 does not emit a signal. Stauber,
col. 7, ll. 53-54; col. 8, ll. 18-21.
7. The clutch-brake unit is actuated by a pneumatic cylinder-piston
unit 196 via a linkage, represented by dashed lines in Figure 19, so
as to automatically replenish the supply loop of the film web 160
assigned to the second idling roller 180. Stauber, col. 8, ll. 21-25;
fig. 19.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 calls for “said clutch arrangement including clutching
components being arranged in such a way that a predetermined tensioning
force acting upon the enveloping material, when grasped by the rotating
bale, remains at least generally constant at a value less than that which
would cause an excessive stretching of the enveloping material regardless of
a change in a difference between said first circumferential velocity of said
bale and said circumferential velocity of said propulsion element.”
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is based on the finding that
Stauber discloses a clutch arrangement that maintains a web under a constant
tensioning force. Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner found that Stauber
Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223

6
discloses a control unit that provides connection of a second conveying
roller 178 via a clutch-brake unit to the drive motor 132, and that this second
conveying roller 178, in combination with springs 184, perform the claimed
function of the clutch arrangement. Ans. 6-7.
Stauber discloses that the two idling rollers 176 and 180 are freely
displaceable in vertical guide members 182 and are each connected to
springs 184, which have a flat spring characteristic in order to tension the
film web 160 with an approximately constant force (Fact 4). Stauber further
discloses that a position sensor 194 emits a signal to the control unit when
the second idling roller 180 is in the lower end region of the guide member
182, and that when the position sensor 194 does not emit a signal, i.e., when
the second idling roller 180 is above the lower end region of the guide
member 182, the control unit provides the connection of a second conveying
roller 178 via a clutch/brake unit (not shown) to the drive motor 132 so as to
automatically replenish the supply loop of the film web 160 assigned to the
second idling roller 180 (Facts 5-7).
Thus, we find that Stauber discloses that the first and second idling
rollers 176 and 180 and their associated springs 184 act to ensure a
predetermined tensioning force on the film web. We further find that the
clutch/brake unit of Stauber effects a drive connection between drive motor
132 and second conveying roller 178 for feeding film web 160 from the
supply roller 172 to the second idling roller 180. We cannot find, however,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the clutching components of the
clutch/brake unit of Stauber are arranged in such a way that a predetermined
Appeal 2009-011030
Application 11/611,223

7
tensioning force acting upon the enveloping material remains at least
generally constant, as called for in claim 1. In particular, we cannot tell
from the scant disclosure of the clutch/brake unit of Stauber whether its
clutching components function in any way to ensure a predetermined
constant tensioning force on the film web. As such, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 3-6 and 8-10, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clostermeyer and Stauber.
CONCLUSION
We cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that Stauber
discloses a clutch arrangement including clutching components being
arranged in such a way that a predetermined tensioning force acting upon the
web material remains at least generally constant.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

nlk

DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE IL 61265