10122635 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2012)

Ex Parte Sands et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 14, 2012

10122635 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2012)

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. 10/122,635 04/17/2002 Jeffrey L. Sands 25570-48830 1330 21788 7590 02/15/2012 RYNDAK & SURI LLP 200 W. MADISON STREET SUITE 2100 CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER BLOUNT, ERIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JEFFREY L. SANDS, JAMES D. CONLIN, THOMAS J. FRANKEN, ANDREW PAUL FRANKLIN, RANDY L. GINNER, RONALD J. GLAVAN, SCOTT A. GLAWE, DAVID A. HILL, MICHAEL J. NEWBERRY, JACK PELLICANE, MANUEL CALZADA, and HENRY THOMAS EWALD ____________________ Appeal 2010-000408 Application 10/122,635 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000408 Application 10/122,635 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-18. Claims 3, 10, 11, 15, and 18 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Ans. 6). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A loading device for moving at least one item, the loading device comprising: a platform for holding the at least one item, and said platform is moveable in a first direction in response to a signal; a sensor; and a moving device moveable in a second direction substantially perpendicular to said first direction, and said moving devices moves in said second direction when said sensor detects said at least one item to move the at least one item from said platform. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fluck (US 5,186,599). Ans. 4- 6. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, 11, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (see Final Rej. 2-3, 5, and 7), however these rejections have been withdrawn in the Answer (see Ans. 8, 10, and 11), and the Appeal 2010-000408 Application 10/122,635 3 Examiner has indicated allowability of the subject matter of these claims (see Ans. 6). Appellants’ Contentions1 Appellants contend (App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 3-5) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for numerous reasons including: (1) Fluck fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a moving device moveable in a second direction substantially perpendicular to a first direction, as recited in claims 1 and 12 (App. Br. 3-4 and 6; Reply Br. 2-3); (2) Fluck cannot receive items 3 in opening 32 because grippers 26 provide lift using suction, and thus claims 2, 4, and 5 are not obvious in view of Fluck (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3); (3) Fluck’s opening 32 is not the same size of item 3, and thus claim 6 is not obvious in view of Fluck (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3); (4) Fluck cannot operate to move belt 1 in a vertical direction and gripping unit 25 in a horizontal direction, and therefore claim 16 is not obvious (App .Br. 7; Reply Br. 3-4); and (5) because Fluck’s suction cup 32 grabs the outer surface of items 3, it is not possible for the items 3 to be received in the gripper 26, and thus claim 17 is not obvious in view of Fluck (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4). Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the briefs, the following principal issue is presented on appeal: 1 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 7-9, 13, and 14 (see App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 2). Appeal 2010-000408 Application 10/122,635 4 Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17 as being obvious because Fluck fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-9) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2- 4) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. With regard to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4- 10) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding the claim limitations relating to the second direction being “substantially perpendicular to” the first direction, and the movement in the first direction being in response to a signal (see claims 1 and 12). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4 and 7) that Fluck teaches a conveyor belt 1 (i.e., a platform) movable in a first direction A, a sensor 4, and a gripping unit 25 with grippers 26 (i.e., moving device) movable in a second direction Z that is “substantially perpendicular to said first direction,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. The fact that pivotal common shaft 30 driven by motor 31 rotates in the process of moving the gripping unit 25 and grippers 26 in the Z direction is not pertinent to whether or not the language of claim 1 encompasses what is Appeal 2010-000408 Application 10/122,635 5 shown and described in Fluck (see Figs. 1 and 2; col. 1, ll. 39-57; col. 2, ll. 8-62). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-6) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that powering Fluck’s device “on” would result in a signal for moving the conveyor belt 1 (i.e., platform) in the first direction A, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12. In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not sufficiently shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 12, or their respective dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and we will sustain the rejection before us. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fluck. (2) Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, and 17 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc