12128059 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

Ex Parte WENK

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 2013

12128059 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KARL-HEINRICH WENK ____________ Appeal 2011-005928 Application 12/128,059 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, STEVEN D. A. MCCARTHY, and BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Karl-Heinrich Wenk (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 8-27. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-005928 Application 12/128,059 2 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a web winding or unwinding device and a method of winding or unwinding a web. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A web winding up or unwinding device adapted for a web-form material coating machine, comprising a web roll support comprising a web roll changing device adapted for changing a web roll essentially outside a web winding up or unwinding chamber, and a web edge guide device comprising a sensor device adapted for determining a shifting of a lateral edge of a web of the web-form material to be wound up on or unwound from the web roll arranged on the web roll support during winding up or unwinding, a web roll support displacing device adapted for laterally displacing the web roll support, and a control device adapted for controlling the web roll support displacing device on the basis of data received from the sensor device, wherein the web roll support includes a web guide roller positioned adjacent to the sensor device. THE PRIOR ART The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Fife US 5,938,098 Aug. 17, 1999 Skuk US 2006/0011769 A1 Jan. 19, 2006 THE REJECTION Claims 1-6 and 8-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fife and Skuk. Appeal 2011-005928 Application 12/128,059 3 OPINION The Examiner has found all of the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17 to be present in Fife, “except for a web guide roller.” Ans. 5. However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art “to modify the apparatus of Fife ‘098, by providing a web guide roller as taught by Skuk ‘769, to show that there are many different structural elements that can be used to support a web roll, but also provide a protection to the web roll or support/guide the web during the winding and unwinding.” Ans. 5. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner adds “[i]t is clear that the sensor 24 of Fife ‘098 is positioned ‘adjacent (i.e., nearby in order for the elements to operate)’ to the web guide roller 20-21 of Skuk ‘769.” Ans. 6. Appellant argues that “Fife and Skuk, alone or in combination, do not teach, show, or suggest a web roll support that includes a web roll changing device and a web guide roller positioned adjacent to a sensor device,” as recited in the independent claims. Br. 12. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner has “fail[ed] to show or explain 1) why . . . the web roller in the system of Fife would require protection and 2) why a person of ordinary skill in the art would choose to provide such protection by implementing a guide roller according to Skuk in the system of Fife.” Reply Br. 2. Further argument from Appellant is that the Examiner has provided no rationale as to why a web guide roller is needed to support/guide the web during winding and unwinding operations of Fife, for in Fife the web is fed directly from supply roll 12 to take up roll 13, and no further guiding or support means seems to be required. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2011-005928 Application 12/128,059 4 Fife discloses a web winding system in which a web 10 is unwound from a supply roll 12 directly to a take up roll 13. Col. 3, ll. 15-17. Fife teaches that the web may shift laterally during operation, which is corrected by shifting the supply roll laterally to compensate. Col. 3, ll. 19-21. The shifting is accomplished by providing a sensor 24 that detects lateral movement of web 10 and, if such is detected, operates a servo motor 20 attached to the supply roll. Col. 3, ll. 11-48. As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, sensor 24 is positioned between supply spool 12 and take up spool 13. As shown in Figure 2, in the Skuk apparatus the web traverses a circuitous route from the feeding roll in chamber 3, around a coating cylinder, to a take up roll in chamber 4. Skuk teaches guiding the web along such a path and through the several changes in direction by a plurality of suitably located guide rollers 27, 37, 16, 17, 38, 18, 20 and 21. Paras. [0018] – [0020]. There is no teaching in Skuk of sensing lateral movement of the web. Appellant has directly challenged the Examiner to explain the reasoning behind the conclusions that “protection” to the web roll would be provided by the addition of a guide roller to the Fife apparatus, and that Skuk would have provided suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a guide roller to the Fife apparatus, in which the web travels a straight path rather than the circuitous path present in Skuk. The Examiner has provided no evidence or explanation with regard to these conclusions, which form the basis for the rejection. “[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal Appeal 2011-005928 Application 12/128,059 5 conclusion of obviousness.”1 Such have not been provided in the statement of the rejection, and the preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s conclusions. This being the case, the rejection is not sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-27 as being unpatentable over Fife and Skuk is reversed. REVERSED mls 1 In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).