Ex Parte MooreDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201512577389 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/577,389 10/12/2009 Robert Hunter Moore 5690-175 4176 20792 7590 01/13/2015 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER HENSON, MISCHITA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2015 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 ROBERT HUNTER MOORE ____________ Appeal 2013-004350 Application 12/577,389 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the July 27, 2012, decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1–17.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is Stowe Woodward, L.L.C. (Appeal Br. 1). 2 Appellant also notes in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has not considered a reference cited in a previously filed Information Disclosure Statement, and requests that the cited reference be considered and acknowledged (Appeal Br. 1–2). Whether the Examiner properly declined to consider a reference cited in an Information Disclosure Statement is a petitionable issue, not an appealable one and, therefore, we do not address the matter. MPEP § 1201; see also In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971). Appeal 2013-004350 Application 12/577,389 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to a system for determining the source of vibration in a nipped roll assembly, and a method for assessing vibration in a nipped industrial roll (Spec. 3–4, ¶¶ 7, 8). In particular, the claimed system recites the presence of a plurality of annular nip condition sensors on a cylindrical roll positioned at different axial locations, which are configured to provide nip condition signals from the nip (the point at which the cylindrical roll comes closest to an opposing mating structure, which is often another cylindrical roll) (id.). The nip condition signals indicate a nip condition at multiple circumferential locations (id.). Claims 1 and 9 are representative of the claims on appeal and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Brief: 1. A system for determining the source of vibration of a nipped roll assembly, comprising: a first substantially cylindrical roll; a mating structure positioned relative to the first roll to form a nip therewith; a plurality of annular nip condition sensor units mounted on the first roll, each of the annular sensor units being positioned at different axial locations along the first roll and configured to provide nip condition signals from the nip, the signals indicating a nip condition at multiple circumferential locations; and a processor associated with the sensor units that receives signals from the sensor units; wherein the processor is configured to convert the signals from the sensor units into nip condition readings for the multiple circumferential locations at each axial location. 9. A method of assessing vibration in an industrial roll, comprising the steps of: providing a roll that includes a plurality of annular nip condition sensor units mounted thereon, each of the Appeal 2013-004350 Application 12/577,389 3 annular nip condition sensor units being positioned at different axial locations along the roll and configured to provide nip condition signals from a nip formed by the roll and a mating structure; rotating the roll; measuring a nip condition at multiple circumferential locations on each nip condition sensor unit; and determining the source of vibration in the roll based on the nip condition measurements. REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1–5, 7–14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moore3 in view of Pitkänen.4 (2) Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moore in view of Pitkänen and further in view of Koriseva.5 Appellants do not offer separate arguments with respect to Rejection (2). Accordingly, claims 6 and 15 stand or fall with independent claims 1 and 9 respectively. DISCUSSION After consideration of the evidence of record, and the arguments set forth by Appellant in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, we affirm the rejections of claims 1–4 and 5–8 essentially for the reasons set forth in the Answer. We reverse the rejection of claims 9–17 essentially for the reasons set forth by Appellant. We add the following for emphasis. 3 Moore, U.S. Patent No. 5,562,027, issued October 8, 1996. 4 Pitkanen, et al., WO 2007/107625 A1, published September 27, 2007. 5 J. Koriseva et al., Soft Calendar Nip: An Interesting Subject for Research and Measurement, 73 PAPER & TIMBER 419–23 (1991). Appeal 2013-004350 Application 12/577,389 4 With respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 over Moore in view of Pitkänen, the Examiner finds that Moore teaches each claim element, except that Moore does not teach nip condition sensors which have an annular shape, or that the system is specifically useful for analyzing vibrations, as opposed to unevenly applied forces (Final Rej. 8). The Examiner finds that Pitkänen discloses a method for measuring forces influencing the roll of a paper, board, finishing, or printing machine through the use of an annular sensor which extends around the entire circumference of the roll (id.). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use Pitkänen’s annular sensors in Moore’s system to better detect variations in pressure by facilitating continuous nip pressure measurements, which would be more sensitive to sources of unwanted oscillations and vibrations (Ans. 5). Appellant does not appear to disagree that Moore discloses each element of the claimed system, except that Moore does not disclose the presence of annular sensors indicating a nip condition at multiple circumferential locations, and a processor appropriately configured to convert the signals from the sensor units into nip condition readings for the multiple circumferential locations at each axial location (see Appeal Br. 4–5). Appellant argues that Moore’s teachings are limited to a system in which only one sensor in a particular circumferential location enters the nip at a time, so that it would not have been obvious to modify Moore’s system to include a processor configured to convert the signals from the annular sensors taught by Pitkänen. This argument is not persuasive. As noted by the Examiner, the portion of Moore that Appellant relies upon to support this argument is directed to only one embodiment of Moore, and Moore also Appeal 2013-004350 Application 12/577,389 5 discusses the use of multiple sets of sensors. Additionally, as stated by the Examiner, modifying the Moore system to include a processor configured to convert signals from annular sensor units would have naturally flowed from a decision to use the annular sensors. In other words, once there was a reason to modify Moore’s system to use annular sensors, it would have been obvious to configure the processor to be able to convert the signals received from those sensors. Appellant also admits that Pitkänen discloses annular sensors, but argues that Pitkänen does not disclose or suggest axially spaced-apart annular sensors with each sensor configured to indicate a nip condition at multiple circumferential locations (Appeal Br. 7). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Moore teaches (as shown in Fig. 2C) axially spaced- apart sensors configured to indicate a nip condition at multiple circumferential locations. Accordingly, even if Pitkänen, which admittedly discloses annular sensors, does not teach these limitations, such a finding would not mandate reversal of the rejection. Appellant also argues that Moore teaches away from the use of annular sensors because of the specific sensor configurations disclosed in Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2E (Appeal Br. 8–12). We disagree. Moore’s Fig. 2C specifically shows a sensor arrangement which would largely correspond to the system identified in claim 4 (“. . . wherein the sensor units are multiple discrete sensors arranged in an annular patternâ€), except that there are not enough “rows†of sensors to constitute an annular pattern. Appellant has not satisfactorily explained why the addition of more “rows†of sensors to Moore’s embodiment as shown in FIG. 2C would not be suggested by Appeal 2013-004350 Application 12/577,389 6 Moore, particularly in combination with Pitkänen’s disclosure of annular sensors (see, e.g., Ans. 10–11). Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the rejection of claim 1, and we affirm that rejection. Because Appellant does not offer separate arguments in favor of the patentability of claims 2, 3, or 5–8 (Appeal Br. 14), we also affirm those rejections. With regards to dependent claim 4, we agree with the Examiner that Pitkänen’s Fig. 2, in combination with Moore’s Fig. 2C shows the additional limitation of the claim. Therefore, we also affirm the rejection of claim 4. With regards to independent claim 9, we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 16) that the Examiner has not articulated a persuasive explanation of why it would have been obvious to perform a step of “determining the source of vibration in the roll†as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 9–17. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–8, and REVERSE the rejection of claims 9–17. 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-IN-PART bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation