Ex Parte DeBruler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

13968773 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/968,773 08/16/2013
27752 7590 12/14/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason Lee DeBruler
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.
13028 1785
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGNESHKUMAR C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2118
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON LEE DeBRULER, PAUL ANTHONY KA WKA, and
ANDREW PRICE PALMER 1
Appeal2018-006037
Application 13/968,773
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and NORMAN H.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to method for reducing the effects of
variations in an unwinding, convolutely wound roll of web material. Spec.,
Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is The Procter &
Gamble Company. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006037
Application 13/968,773
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method for reducing the effects of variations in
unwinding a convolutely wound roll of web material, said
unwinding being modifiable by an actuator, the method
compnsmg:
a) providing an out-of-round convolutely wound roll of
web material and selecting a reference objective relating to a
downstream operation;
b) choosing at least one feedback device correlated to
said reference objective;
c) collecting process data from said at least one feedback
device at different positions within a time-varying operation
cycle for at least one operation cycle comprising one revolution
of said convolutely wound roll of web material to detect
at least one periodic disturbance beginning at a first position
within said time varying operation cycle selected from the
group consisting of feed-rate variability, web velocity
variability, tension variability, and combinations thereof in the
convolutely wound roll at a learning speed;
d) calculating an error as the difference between said
collected process data from step ( c) and a reference signal
related to said selected reference objective;
e) generating a correction signal based upon said
calculated error from step ( d); and,
f) applying said correction signal to said actuator
beginning at said first position during a succeeding time-varying
operation cycle.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 1-2, 6-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Henry (US Patent 6,444,064 B2, issued Sep. 3, 2002) in
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed Dec.
18, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Aug. 2, 2017;
Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") submitted Aug. 16, 2013; and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Mar. 8, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-006037
Application 13/968,773
view of Miller (US PG Pub 2005/0125180 Al, published Jun. 9, 2005), and
further in view of Franz (US PG Pub 2005/0167460 Al, published Aug. 4,
2005).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
over Henry in view of Miller, and further in view of Franz, and further in
view of Reddy (US PG Pub 2008/0228292 Al, published Sep. 18, 2008),
and further in view of Milkovic (US Patent 4,912,423, issued Mar. 27,
1990).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Henry in view of Miller, and further in view of Franz, and further in view of
Klingler (US Patent 5,584,244, issued Dec. 17, 1996).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Henry in view of Miller, and further in view of Franz, and further in view of
Weinhold (US PG Pub 2013/0052293 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20.
Appellants argue independent claim 1 recites "one operation cycle
comprising one revolution of said convolutely wound roll of web material to
detect at least one periodic disturbance beginning at a first position within
said time-varying operation cycle." Br. 4 ( emphasis added ("the disputed
limitation"). Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner acknowledges
that Henry does not teach the disputed limitation (see Final Act. 6) and that
3
Appeal2018-006037
Application 13/968,773
Miller's encoder "is not a convolutely wound roll of web material and one of
ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize this distinction." Br. 4. In
particular, Appellants argue:
Id.
Appellants fail to see where an operation cycle comprising one
revolution of said convolutely wound roll of web material is
described in paragraph [0123]. Miller simply teaches an
encoder 50a (as seen in Figure 5B of Miller) which provides a
change of converter position reference signal 62 of the encoder
50a over time (for example, one revolution of the encoder 50a
per a target object 42). Appellants respectfully submit that an
encoder is not a convolutely wound roll of web material and
one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize this
distinction.
The Examiner's rejection cites to Miller's paragraphs 118 and 123 as
providing the teachings regarding the disputed limitation. Ans. 4. Although
we concur with the Examiner that Miller teaches an encoder, we do not find
the cited portion of Miller's disclosure to teach one revolution of said
convolutely wound roll of web material to detect at least one periodic
disturbance beginning at a first position within the time-varying operation
cycle. Thus, the Examiner's rejection cites insufficient evidence to support
the finding that Henry, Miller, and Franz teach the claimed "one operation
cycle comprising one revolution of said convolutely wound roll of web
material to detect at least one periodic disturbance beginning at a first
position within said time-varying operation cycle." Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2-20.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Henry
and Franz make up for the deficiency noted above in the rejection of the
4
Appeal2018-006037
Application 13/968,773
independent claim. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 2-20 for the same reasons as discussed
above with respect to the rejection of the independent claim.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5