Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2019

14122753 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/122,753 11/27/2013 Kim A. Anderson
42754 7590 03/28/2019
Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC
176 E. Main Street
Suite #5
Westborough, MA 01581
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.
MT-158 6995
EXAMINER
ZHAO, XIAO SI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIM A. ANDERSON, 1
Eric Maki, and George Glenn
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MONTE T. SQUIRE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Kim A. Anderson, Eric Maki, and George Glenn ("Anderson") timely
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-9
and 14. 3 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse for reasons well-
stated by Anderson.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Megtec Systems, Inc. (Appeal
Brief, filed 18 May 2017 ("Br."), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 22 September 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
3 Remaining copending claims 10-13 have been withdrawn from
consideration by the Examiner (FR 1 § 5a), and are not before us.
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
OPINION
A. Introduction4
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for lifting and
stabilizing a web, particularly in intermittent coating operations. An
example of such processes is said to be the manufacture of electrodes for
certain batteries, in which an anode or cathode electrode substrate is coated
in a series of discrete patches of precisely controlled length and thickness
profiles. (Spec. 1, 11. 9--16.)
An embodiment in which lifter-stabilizer 105 is said to be especially
useful is illustrated in Figures 13A and 13B, below.
{Fig. 13A: lifter 10 in coating
position: slot die coater 200 contacts
undeflected web 100}
{Fig. 13B: lifter 10 in non-coating
position; slot die coater 200 does
not contact deflected web 100}
4 Application 14/122,753, Web lifter/stabilizer and method,
filed 27 November 2013, as the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of
PCT/US2012/040667, filed 04 June 2012, claiming the benefit of
provisional application 61/493,046, filed 03 June 2011. The Specification is
cited as "Spec."
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
As shown in Figure 13A, non-deflected web 100 is transported over
slot 25 in the top surface of stationary lifter-stabilizer device 10 as negative
pressure is applied to slot 25 by vacuum reservoir 16, while a coating is
applied to web 100 by slot die coater 200. As shown in Figure 13B, when
coating is not desired, lifter-stabilizer device 10 is rotated, e.g., by servo
motor 17 connected to shaft stubs 12 (id. at 15, 11. 18-24 (Figures 9 and 10,
not reproduced here); see also Fig. IA, infra), deflecting travelling web 100
away from slot die coater 200.
Body 50 of lifter 10 is shown in more detail in Figure IA, below.
{Figure IA (annotations added) shows some details of body 50 of lifter 10}
The upper surface of body 50 is formed by highly polished flat
portion 20A of I-shaped member 20, which, in the words of the
Specification, "contacts the web when the device is in the on coat position."
(Spec. 11, 11. 23-25.) As shown, I-shaped member 20 is form-fitted to shaft
stubs 12, and it connects with bent member 21, the middle portion 21B of
3
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
which cooperates with portion 20A to form slot 25. As indicated supra
regarding Figure 13, slot 25 is arranged, via various apertures and plenmns,
to be in fluid communication with vacuum source 16, providing a force to
"flatten the web and hold it down of the slot die coater 200 positioned
immediately downstream of the device 10." (Id. at 15, 11. 1-2.)
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
Web lifter or stabilizer device [10] for lifting or stabilizing
a travelling web [100], comprising
a body [50] having
a first portion [20A] defining a leading edge of said
device, and
a second portion [21A] defining a trailing edge of said
device,
said first portion [20A] being spaced from said
second portion [21A] so as to define an
air entry slot [25] between them/or the entry of air
upon the application of negative pressure to said body;
a vacuum source [16] in fluid communication with said
body [50] for receiving said air that enters said slot [25];
said body [50] being rotatable between
a first position in which said web travels in an
undeflected state [Fig. 13A ], and
a second position in which said web is deflected by said
body so as to travel in a deflected state [Fig. 13B],
wherein the applied negative pressure positions said
web [100] into contact with the surface [20A] of said device.
(Claims App., Br. 17; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels to
elements shown in the figures added.)
4
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 6, 7 :
A. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) in view of the combined teachings of Seidl, 8
Meeker,9 White, 10 and Berry. 11
Al. Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Seidl, Meeker, White,
Berry, and Singleton. 12
A2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Seidl and Meeker.
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Anderson urges (Br. 8) that the Examiner erred harmfully because the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have never modified the critical floatation
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 26 September 2017 ("Ans.").
7 Because this application claims the benefit of an application filed
before 16 March 2013, the effective date of the America Invents Act, we
refer to the pre-AIA version of the statute.
8 Paul Seidl and Michael 0. Rocheleau, Step air foil web stabilizer, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2008/0276488 A (2008).
9 Brian L. Meeker, Method and apparatus for impregnating afibrous web,
U.S. Patent No. 4,288,475 (1981).
10 John M. White, Web lift system for chemical mechanical planarization,
U.S. Patent No. 6,562,884 Bl (2003).
11 Kenneth William Berry, Apparatus for coating both sides of a travelling
web, U.S. Patent No. 4,108,110 (1978).
12 Robert W. Singleton and Craig Nelson, Apparatus and method of
manufacturing a battery cell, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2002/0007552 Al (2002).
5
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
and non-contact support objectives of the device designed, in the words of
Seidl, for "contactlessly drying and guiding traveling webs ... [ and] that
minimizes, eliminates or removes web wrinkles" (Seidl [0001 ]), by
arranging the device to make contact with the web. As Anderson points out
(Br. 11 ), these objectives are achieved, according to Seidl, when "air flow
from the principal blower is discharged through primary and secondary slots
or orifices" in the face of the air foil over which the webs are transported
(Seidl [0031 ]). An example of primary slot P and secondary slot S, shown
in Seidl Figure 1, reproduced below (boxed emphasis added).
6
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
The Examiner finds, in the Final Rejection, that "Seidl further
discloses that conventional systems utilize negative pressure in the slots
(para [0031] negative pressure to pull the web down)." (FR, sentence
bridging 3--4.) Review of paragraph [0031] reveals that Seidl does not teach
negative pressure in the slots. Rather, as indicated supra, Seidl teaches that
air flow is discharged from those slots. Thus, the pressure in the slots must
be positive relative to the ambient, i.e., the pressure in the slots must be
higher than the pressure outside of the slots. The Examiner's finding is
erroneous.
The Examiner's attempt to recharacterize the citation of
paragraph [0031] as a demonstration that "Seidl recognizes that negative
pressure is another type of pressure that can help stabilize the web" (Ans. 4,
11. 17-20) is not persuasive. As Anderson urges, the pressure that keeps the
web being dried by Seidl in position arises from the flow of air out of slots P
and S in the air foil into the space between the air foil and the web being
parallel to the web. (Br. 11-12.) The relatively stationary air on the other
side of the web thus exerts, by Bernoulli's principle, more pressure on the
web than does the moving air, and the web is pushed towards-but does not
contact-the surface of the air foil. (Id.) The Examiner fails to explain why
the routineer would have reversed the flow of air though slots P and S in the
apparatus taught by Seidl, based on the teachings of Meeker that a vacuum
may be applied to a porous web carried on a porous belt in order to draw a
foamed binder material into the web. Where Seidl seeks to prevent contact
between the web and the air foil, Meeker seeks to enhance contact between
the web and the conveyer belt that transports the web.
7
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
Similarly, the Examiner's attempt to broaden the scope of
applicability of Seidl's teachings by focusing on the "transportation of a
web" as the problem addressed by Seidl is not persuasive. As Anderson
states,
[ o ]ne skilled in the art would have no reasonable expectation
of success in somehow using the Seidl contactless web
stabilizer, with carefully configured and arranged primary
and secondary discharge slots to discharge air to float a
moving web, with a vacuum source to suck in air to cause
contact between the device and the moving web.
(Reply, sentence bridging 5-6.)
The Examiner is correct that a general teaching of prior art
Reference A may be used as evidence of the state of the art at some point in
time, and that further prior art evidence from Reference B may be used to
show that certain modifications of the original prior art would have been
obvious, even if contrary to the thrust of the invention disclosed by
Reference A. There must, however, be evidence supporting the
incorporation and modification of each element required by the claim under
examination, including all relations between all elements.
In the present case, the Examiner has failed to come forward with
credible evidence that it would have been obvious to reverse the flow of air
through the primary and secondary slots taught by Seidl without, in the
words of Anderson, running "completely counter to the goals and
functionality of Seidl." (Br., sentence bridging 12-13.) We are therefore
persuaded that the Examiner's erroneous findings of fact and analysis are
harmful, and we reverse.
8
Appeal2018-001474
Application 14/122,753
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-9 and 14 is reversed.
REVERSED
9