Ex Parte Wipf

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13258652 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/258,652 12/22/2011
34044 7590 09/16/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alfred Wipf
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
022862-1343-USOO 4293
EXAMINER
NICHOLSON III, LESLIE AUGUST
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFRED WIPF
Appeal2014-008601
Application 13/258,652
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alfred Wipf ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008601
Application 13/258,652
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A device for transferring products from a feeder conveyor
belt (10) to a discharge conveyor belt (12), the device
compnsmg:
a linear motor with conveyor elements (14), which are
guided displaceably on a guide and have grippers (18) for
temporarily picking up products (20), characterized in that
the guide is a linear guide section (13), and the conveyor
elements (14) are displaceable to and fro on the guide section
(13) for picking up and depositing the products (20),
when products (20) are supplied consecutively in a line in
a conveying direction (z) of the feeder conveyor belt (10), the
feeder conveyor belt (10), the discharge conveyor belt (12)
and the guide section (13) are arranged parallel next to one
another, at least in a lateral overlapping region, and,
when products (20) are supplied in rows next to one
another in the conveying direction (z) of the feeder conveyor belt
(10), the feeder conveyor belt (10) is arranged perpendicularly to
the discharge conveyor belt (12), and the discharge conveyor belt
(12) and the guide section (13) are arranged parallel to each other
and are arranged next to each other together with the feeder
conveyor belt (10), at least in a lateral overlapping region.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
for indefiniteness. 2
2 The Examiner withdrew all other claim rejections set forth in the Final
Rejection. Compare Final Act. 4--10 with Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-008601
Application 13/258,652
DISCUSSION
Each of the independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 recites "when
products (20) are supplied consecutively in a line in a conveying direction
(z) of the feeder conveyor belt (10), the feeder conveyor belt (10), the
discharge conveyor belt ( 12) ... are arranged parallel next to one another"
and "when products (20) are supplied in rows next to one another in the
conveying direction (z) of the feeder conveyor belt (10), the feeder conveyor
belt (10) is arranged perpendicularly to the discharge conveyor belt (12)."
Appeal Br. 11, 12, 13, and 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects the
claims as indefinite "[b ]ecause an element cannot be recited to be both
parallel and perpendicular to another element without clarification, the
position of the feeder conveyor belt and discharge conveyor belt relative to
one another is unclear." Final Act. 6.
Appellant contends that the claims are not unclear because the two
orientations for the feeder conveyor belt and discharge conveyor belt are
conditioned on the two recited orientations of the products on the feeder
conveyor belt. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, when the products are
"supplied consecutively in a line", the feeder conveyor belt and the
discharge conveyor belt "are arranged parallel to one another." See id. at 8
(citing Spec. i-fi-135, 37, 53, Figs. 1, 2, 9). However, when the products are
"supplied in rows next to one another", the "conveyor belt (10) is arranged
perpendicularly to the discharge conveyor belt (12)." See id. (citing Spec. i1
10, Fig. 10). Appellant argues that"[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the specification, would understand the context and scope of' the
claims. Id. at 8. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection.
3
Appeal2014-008601
Application 13/258,652
Patent claims are indefinite if the "claims, read in light of the
specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to
inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of
the invention." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120,
2124 (2014). The breadth of a claim, however, is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See e.g., In re Miller, 441F.2d689, 693 (CCPA 1971). The
claims, read in light of the Specification, clearly define the relative position
of the feeder conveyor belt and discharge conveyor belt under the two
recited orientations of the products on the feeder conveyor belt. By not
limiting the claim language to a single orientation of the feeder conveyor
belt and discharge conveyor belt, namely, parallel or perpendicular, the
claim is merely broad, not indefinite. Hence, although the claimed subject
matter may be broad, claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 are not indefinite. Likewise,
dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13-19 are not indefinite. Consequently,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 for indefiniteness under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4