Ranpak Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2021

2020005598 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

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.
15/308,227 11/01/2016 Robert C. Cheich RANPP0428WOUS 5499
23908 7590 04/28/2021
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2021 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT C. CHEICH and STEVEN TONEFF
Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ranpak Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a machine for producing dunnage having an
X-shaped cross-sectional profile. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A machine for converting plies of sheet stock material into a
relatively lower density dunnage product, the machine
comprising:
a bunching assembly configured to randomly crumple
each ply into a three-dimensional modified ply, each ply being
crumpled separately, the bunching assembly including one or
more elements that define respective separate paths for each of
at least two plies; and
a feeding assembly downstream of the bunching
assembly, the feeding assembly having a pair of opposed
members arranged to advance the modified plies between the
opposed members and to connect together longitudinally-
extending overlapped portions of the modified plies to form a
dunnage strip having a longitudinally-extending line of
connection spaced from at least one edge of one of the modified
plies to form a dunnage product having an X-shape cross-
section.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Johnson US 3,799,039 Mar. 26, 1974
Lencoski US 6,135,939 Oct. 24, 2000
Deis US 9,688,044 B2 June 27, 2017
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–11 103 Johnson, Deis
2 103 Johnson, Deis, Lencoski

Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227

3
OPINION
Claims 1, 3–11: Rejected as Unpatentable over Johnson and Deis
The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches a machine for converting at
least two plies of sheet stock material into a relatively lower density dunnage
product, the machine comprising a bunching assembly configured to
randomly crumple each ply into a three-dimensional modified ply, each ply
being crumpled separately; and a feeding assembly downstream of the
bunching assembly, the feeding assembly having a pair of opposed members
arranged to advance the modified plies between the opposed members.
Final Act. 2 (citing Johnson, Figs. 2, 4, 6). The Examiner further finds,
however, that Johnson does not disclose that the feeding assembly is
arranged to connect together longitudinally extending overlapped portions of
the modified plies to form a dunnage strip having a longitudinally extending
line of connection spaced from at least one edge of one of the modified plies
to form a dunnage product having an X-shaped cross-section. Id. at 3. The
Examiner therefore relies on Deis for this limitation. Id. According to the
Examiner, “Deis discloses a similar machine with the use of multiple plies to
connect together longitudinally- extending overlapped portions of the
modified plies to form a dunnage strip longitudinally-extending line of
connection spaced from at least one edge of the modified plies, to form a
dunnage product having an x-shape cross-section.” Id. (citing Deis, Figs. 1,
3, 6). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s device “by having plies
being connected together longitudinally to form a dunnage strip
longitudinally-extending line of connection spaced from at least one edge of
one of the modified plies, as suggested by Deis, in order to come up with
Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227

4
better produced cushioning [product] that is particularly suitable for
cushioning objected contained in packages.” Id. (citing Deis, 1:15–19).
In response, Appellant argues, among other things, that “the Examiner
has taken the position that the ordinary skilled person would have modified
Johnson’s machine by using Deis’s pre-glued plies, without explaining how
the use of a different stock material would lead the ordinary skilled person to
modify Johnson’s structural deficiencies.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing Final
Act. 3). Appellant contends that:
Johnson employs cross bars to separate each ply prior to
crumpling the plies to facilitate “bellying” the plies and
inwardly turn the edges of the plies before bringing the plies
back together before crumpling. Since pre-glued plies cannot
be separated, Dies may suggest to the skilled person to
eliminate the cross bars and simply pass the glued plies to the
bellying mechanism. But that would not lead the ordinary
skilled person to modify Johnson to include separate crumpling
paths as claimed. Because Deis’s plies are glued together, there
would be no reason to modify Johnson’s funnel-like mechanism
to include separate crumpling paths for each ply. In fact, it
would be impossible to feed each ply along a separate path if
the plies are glued together.
Id. at 17.
We do not sustain this rejection because we are not persuaded that the
proposed combination of Johnson and Deis, to the extent we understand it,
teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1.
In the Final Action, the Examiner appears to propose using Deis’s
paper strip, which comprises two layers overlayed and connected (e.g.,
glued) together in their middle area (Deis, 4:48–56), in Johnson’s device,
with Johnson’s device being “modif[ied]” in some unspecified manner. See
Final Act. 3 (finding that it would have been obvious to “have modified
Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227

5
Johnson’s machine by having plies being connected together longitudinally
to form a dunnage strip longitudinally extending line of connection spaced
from at least one edge of one of the modified plies”); id. at 5–6 (finding that
it would have been obvious “to have modified [Johnson’s] machine and/or
substituted [Johnson’s] rolled web by having plies being connected together
longitudinally”). However, as Appellant states, “[s]ince pre-glued plies
cannot be separated,” one of ordinary skill in the art would likely consider
removing that structure in Johnson that separates the plies, e.g., the cross
rods (or guide rods) 26, 28, and 30. Appeal Br. 17; see Johnson, 3:32–38,
4:30–37 (teaching that each of cross rods 26, 28, and 30 “coacts” with each
of plies 16, 16a, and 16b, such that ply 16 passes over rod 26, ply 16a passes
over rod 28, and ply 16b passes over rod 30 before the plies enter crumple
section 36). But it is the separation of plies 16, 16a, and 16b on which the
Examiner relies in finding that Johnson teaches the claimed separate
crumpling paths. See Ans. 4 (Johnson teaches crumpling two or more plies
in separate paths “via the shown curved/coned webs 16, 16a, & 16b each
coned separately prior to being merged at station 36”); id. at 5 (Johnson
teaches separate paths for crumpling two plies “via different paths of plies
16, 16a, & 16b”).
To the extent that the Examiner is proposing that the two plies in
Deis’s paper strip be separated in Johnson’s device, it is unclear how the
resulting dunnage product would have an X-shaped cross section. The
Examiner appears to be relying on Johnson’s machine using Deis’s paper
strip, with the two plies connected, to teach the formation of a dunnage strip
having the claimed X-shaped cross section. Final Act. 3 (citing Deis, Figs.
1, 3, 6). In the Answer the Examiner proposes that crumpling station 36 of
Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227

6
Johnson’s machine would be modified “to be similar to the one shown by
[Deis] on Fig. 3 to have the edges free instead of rolling them.” Ans. 6.
Figure 3 of Deis depicts rollers 82, 84 that, when driven at a speed slower
than upstream rollers 74, 76, crumples paper strip 10 along its middle area.
Deis, 6:8–11, 29–35. It is far from clear what modifications would be
possible that would produce a machine that provides for both separate
crumpling paths for each ply if the plies are glued together. It is also unclear
how such a machine would produce a dunnage product having an X-shaped
cross-section. If the plies are glued together in order to produce an X-
shaped dunnage product, then the Examiner has not adequately explained
how separate crumpling paths are achieved. If the plies are not glued
together in order to maintain separate crumpling paths for each ply, then the
Examiner has not adequately explained how an X-shaped dunnage product is
produced.
Because we are not persuaded that the proposed combination of
Johnson and Deis would have resulted in a dunnage machine that both
provides for separate crumpling paths for each of two or more plies of paper
sheet stock, and produces a dunnage product having an X-shaped cross
section, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Johnson and Deis, as well as of claims 3–11, which
depend therefrom.
Claim 2: Rejected as Unpatentable over Johnson, Deis, and Lencoski
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 relies on the Examiner’s erroneous
determination that the combination of Johnson and Deis teaches or suggests
all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5. Lencoski is not relied on to
Appeal 2020-005598
Application 15/308,227

7
cure the deficiencies of this combination. Id. Therefore, this rejection is not
sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–11 103 Johnson, Deis 1, 3–11
2 103 Johnson, Deis,
Lencoski
2
Overall
Outcome
1–11

REVERSED