Ex Parte Moore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2015

12577389 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015)

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 pattern”), 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