Ex Parte Caron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 20, 2013

10736187 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2013)

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.
10/736,187 12/15/2003 Glen Roger Caron 6001.1298 4371
23280 7590 08/21/2013
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
485 7th Avenue
14th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
SEVERSON, JEREMY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2013 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 GLEN ROGER CARON, GLENN ALAN GUARALDI,
and RICHARD CRAIG MEYER
____________

Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, BRETT C. MARTIN,
and PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Glen Roger Caron et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 8-16.1 We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 4-6. Ans. 2. However,
the rejection of claim 7 also should have been withdrawn, since claim 7
depends from claim 5. We shall treat this as an inadvertent error which
should be corrected in further proceedings.
Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187

2

THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a sheet material conveyor having
a plurality of moving pockets and an air source to reduce friction between
the sheet material and the surface of the pockets as the sheet material is
ejected from the pockets.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A sheet material conveyor comprising:
a pocket conveyor with at least one moving pocket for
collecting printed sheet material, the pocket conveyor
having a release area for releasing the printing2 sheet
material in the pocket; and
an air supply device providing air to the pocket at the release
area, the air supply device including an air source, the
pocket being movable with respect to the air source.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Manley US 5,186,443 Feb. 16, 1993
Brooke GB 2 032 889 A May 14, 1980

2“Printing” should read “printed,” an inadvertent error that was present in the
original claims and should be corrected in further proceedings.
Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187

3

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 and 8-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Manley and Brooke.
OPINION
The Examiner finds all of the subject matter recited in independent
claim 1 to be present in Manley, except for “an air supply device providing
air to the pocket at the release area, the air supply device including an air
source, the pocket being movable with respect to the air source.” Ans. 3.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that Brooke teaches providing air to a
pocket for the purpose of reducing friction between a stack of printed sheet
material and the support surface of the pocket during ejection of the sheet
material from the pocket, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Manley by adding an air supply device providing
air to the pocket during ejection of the sheet material from the pocket. Ans.
3-4.
In their arguments, Appellants have commented in great detail
regarding the content of the references and the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions. However, the focus of Appellants’ arguments is that neither
Manley nor Brooke discloses or teaches a system or method wherein a single
air source provides air to the pockets in a release area where the pockets are
movable with respect to the air source. This being the case, Appellants
assert the teachings of Brooke would not have motivated one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the Manley system in the manner proposed by the
Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187

4
Examiner, and that the rejection is based upon the use of impermissible
hindsight. See Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-5.
Manley is directed to a system for collating newspapers. The
apparatus includes a sheet feeder mechanism, a collator assembly, and a
conveyor assembly that receives the sheet material from the collator
assembly. Collator assembly 26 comprises a plurality of bottom opening
pockets 56 mounted on a rotating conveyor 54. Col. 3, ll. 10-17; Figs. 2 and
3. Sheet material in the form of newspapers 28 is sequentially fed from a
hopper 62 into pockets 56 of the rotating conveyor 54. Col. 3, ll. 25-36.
Manley explains that
[a]s each of the pockets 56 goes through a delivery station 94, a
cam control mechanism effects movement between the opposite
sides of the pocket to open the lower end of the pocket. As a
pocket 56 opens, a newspaper 28 is delivered by being dropped
from the pocket downwardly to the gripper conveyor assembly
32 (Figs. 7-10).
Col. 3, ll. 50-56.
Brooke states that “[t]he use of air in sheet handling systems is well
known and has been employed both for transporting sheets and for guiding
sheets against registration devices” (Page 1, ll. 23-26), and that it is an object
of the invention “to provide such apparatus in which the effects of intersheet
friction are alleviated or minimized” (Page 1, ll. 86-88). Brooke teaches that
[b]y directing air under the sheets as they are entering the stack
supporting area and being registered, the sheets are able to glide
over the stack (or in the case of the first sheet of the set, the
support surface) with a reduced resistance due to electrostatic or
friction drag.
Page 1, ll. 102-107. See also Page 3, ll. 77-89.
Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187

5
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, Brooke discloses a sheet stacking
apparatus comprising a tray 101 having a downwardly inclined support
surface 102 with registration fences 104-105 forming a registration corner
103. Page 3, ll. 11-15. Air is supplied under pressure from an air source to
an array of orifices arranged across the sheet delivery path to “produce a thin
layer or blanket of air flowing across the support surface 102.” Page 3, ll.
29-30. Completed sets of sheets assembled in tray 101 are ejected into an
output tray 120 by retracting fence 104. Page 3, ll. 99-101. This constitutes
a “release area,” in that the sets of sheets are ejected from tray 101 into
output tray 120. “In order to reduce the effects of friction and electrostatic
drag between the stack and the support surface 102 during set ejection, the
latter is perforated with an array of apertures 121 through which, during set
ejection, air is blown.” Page 3, ll. 105-109.
It is clear from the Brooke disclosure that it was known in the art at
the time of Appellants’ invention to use pressurized air in sheet handling
systems to support the sheets as they are advanced over surfaces in order to
reduce friction and, in particular, to utilize such a technique to provide a
layer of air between the sheet material and the surfaces of the tray through
which the sheet material passes in the course of being ejected at a release
area. While the surface with which the sheet material makes contact as it is
being ejected in the Brooke system is stationary and those in Manley are
movable, in both systems the sheet material is in contact with supporting
surfaces in the course of being ejected at a release area. It is our conclusion
that the teachings of Brooke would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide pressurized air to the pockets in the Manley system as they
move through the release area, for the predictable result of reducing friction
Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187

6
and electrostatic drag between the sheet material and the surfaces with which
it is in contact as it is ejected from the pocket. While we have carefully
considered the arguments Appellants have set forth in the Brief and the
Reply Brief, they have not persuaded us otherwise.
The combined teachings of Manley and Brook therefore render
obvious the requirement in claim 1 that there be “an air source, the pocket
being movable with respect to the air source,” the step of “providing
pressurized air to the printed sheet material as the pockets move past a
pressurized air source,” as in independent claim 13, and “the plurality of
pockets movable with respect to the pressurized air source,” as in
independent claim 16. The rejection of independent claims 1, 13 and 16
therefore is sustained. Since Appellants have chosen not to separately argue
the patentability of dependent claims 3 and 8-12 (Br. 7), and claims 14 and
15 (Br. 9), the rejection of these claims also is sustained.
Claim 2 adds to claim 1 the requirement that “the pocket has a pocket
foot released at the release area to drop the printed material.” The Examiner
has taken the position that “Fig 10 of Manley shows the bottom portion of
the pocket (the ‘pocket foot’) moving in order to drop the sheet material.”
Ans. 6. Appellants argue that this is not the case. Br. 11.
As shown in Manley’s Figures 9 and 10, pocket 56 comprises a
pivotally mounted side element (unnumbered, but to the right as shown)
terminating in an inwardly turned “foot” portion (unnumbered). While the
pocket is closed (Figure 9) the “foot” holds the printed sheets in the pocket,
and when the side element is pivoted to the open position (Figure 10) the
“foot” is displaced, allowing the printed sheets to be ejected. See Col. 3, ll.
53-56.
Appeal 2011-005874
Application 10/736,187

7
The rejection of claim 2 is sustained.

DECISION
The rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

JRG