Ex Parte HowellDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 201512540466 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/540,466 08/13/2009 Clifton R. HOWELL 121981-00280 1382 51468 7590 09/11/2015 McCarter & English LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. 245 Park Avenue NEW YORK, NY 10167 EXAMINER HARP, WILLIAM RAY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3651 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/11/2015 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 CLIFTON R. HOWELL ____________ Appeal 2013-006184 Application 12/540,466 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Clifton R. Howell (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3‒8, 10‒15, and 17‒20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “an apparatus and method which uses a separate registration staging drive for registering packages or bags . . . into a machine, such as a main conveyor, that processes such packages or bags.” Spec. 1, para. 2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below. Appeal 2013-006184 Application 12/540,466 2 1. A staging conveyor for communicating packages or bags between an initial conveyor and a subsequent conveyor, comprising: a lower conveyor belt traversing lower first and second rollers; a servo, wherein the lower conveyor belt and the lower first and second rollers move operatively responsive to the servo; a computing device controlling operation of the servo; and a sensor for sensing a position of a package or bag being transported by the lower conveyor belt and outputting position data to the computing device, whereby the computing device calculates a desired speed for a package or bag and outputs data to the servo to adjust the speed of the lower conveyor belt and lower first and second rollers. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied upon the following evidence: Niwa US 3,552,088 Jan. 5, 1971 Ross US 5,082,103 Jan. 21, 1992 REJECTIONS Appellant appeals the Final Action of the Examiner, which includes the following rejections: 1. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. 2. Claims 1, 3‒8, 10‒15, and 17‒20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niwa and Ross. Appeal 2013-006184 Application 12/540,466 3 ANALYSIS Appellant does not contest the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. Br. 5. We summarily affirm this first ground of rejection. Appellant argues the claims subject to the second ground of rejection as a group. Id. We select claim 1 as a representative claim; the remaining claims subject to the second ground of rejection stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014). Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Niwa and Ross because “both . . . references relate to transport of articles and to wrapping and packaging of articles, rather than transport of packages or bags.” Br. 5. Appellant asserts that “[t]he handling of the packages or bags is typically very different from the articles handled in the Ross or Niwa references.” Id. The Examiner found that the recitation in claim 1 of “communicating packages or bags” is a statement of intended use that does not result in a difference in structure between the claimed invention and the prior art. Final Act. 4; Ans. 12. The Examiner found the structure resulting from the combination of Niwa and Ross would be capable of this intended use. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not distinguish structurally over the prior art. The apparatus of Niwa, as modified by Ross, includes conveyors, servos, computing devices, and sensors that render it capable of communicating packages or bags. Final Act. 4‒5; see also Niwa, Figs. 1‒3; Ross, Figs. 1, 2, 4. In fact, as noted by the Examiner, Niwa explicitly Appeal 2013-006184 Application 12/540,466 4 discloses using its apparatus to transport “packages” because Niwa’s system wraps article 5 and then conveys it after it has been wrapped. Ans. 13 (citing col. 2, l. 32); see also Niwa, col. 4, ll. 11‒39 (describing wrapping of the article 5 such that when the article arrives on conveyor belt 9 it is referred to as a “package”). Appellant has not demonstrated a structural difference between the apparatus of Niwa, as modified by Ross, and the claimed apparatus, or provided any persuasive explanation of why the modified apparatus of Niwa would not be capable of communicating packages or bags. We find that the Examiner has adequately addressed Appellant’s arguments in the Final Action and in the Examiner’s Answer. Final Act. 4‒5; Ans. 12‒13. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as our own. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3‒8, 10‒15, and 17‒20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED em Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation