Ex Parte ViaudDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 15, 201011611223 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation