Ex Parte Wunsch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12742860 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121742,860 05/13/2010
9748 7590
LAITRAM, L.L. C.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
200 LAITRAM LANE
HARAHAN, LA 70123
07115/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip J. Wunsch
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.
2339.2 8804
EXAMINER
SINGH, KA VEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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):
jcronvic@laitram.com
cbishop@laitram.com
dgwalker@laitram.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP J. WUNSCH
Appeal2014-002269
Application 12/742,860
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16. See Appeal Br. 3. Claim 11 is objected to. Id.
Claims 14 and 15 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002269
Application 12/742,860
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A module for a modular conveyor belt comprising first and
second lengthwise ends, a top surface for supporting a load
disposed between the first and second lengthwise ends, a
bore for receiving a hinge rod formed at one of the first and
second lengthwise ends, a retainer having a fixed end and a
free end, the retainer being bendable toward and away from
the first lengthwise end between a first position in which the
retainer prevents a hinge rod from being withdrawn from the
bore and a second position in which a hinge rod can pass
over the retainer to be withdrawn from the bore, and a
stopper which supports the retainer at a location in a middle
50% of the length of the retainer when the retainer is in its
second position.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Verdigets (US 6,857,516 Bl, iss. Feb. 22, 2005).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Verdigets and Weiser (US 6,705,460 B2, iss. Mar. 16, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 as anticipated by Verdigets
The Examiner found that V erdigets teaches a module, as recited in
claims 1 and 12, with a retainer (shank 36) that is bendable between a first
position that prevents hinge rod 24 from being withdrawn from bore 22 and
a second position in which hinge rod 24 passes over retainer 32, and stopper
30. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also found that Verdigets teaches a retainer
(between notch 40 and bend 32) with a flexible shank extending from a bend
at one end to an enlarged head at the other end with a stopper (post 28) that
supports the retainer at a location in a middle 50% of its length. Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-002269
Application 12/742,860
Appellant argues that bend 3 2 is not a retainer but instead is a part of
retention member 30, and retention member 30 does not act as a stopper to
support bend 32, as claimed. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that neither
post 28 nor guard 44 supports retainer 30' in a middle 50% of its length in
the second, unblocking position, as claimed. Id. at 5; Reply Br. 1. Figures
5, 6A, and 6B of V erdigets illustrate the first and second positions of retainer
30, 30' and are reproduced below.
Fl6. 5
J
,/
t;
F14. &A
Figure 5 shows rod retention member 30 in a first blocking position
(hard line) and a second unblocking position 30' (dashed lines). Figure 6A
shows the first position where head 34 blocks rod 24. Figure 6B shows the
second position where rod 24 passes under head 34. Verdigets, 4: 19-52.
3
Appeal2014-002269
Application 12/742,860
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
stopper 28 supports retainer 30 "when the retainer is in its second position," 1
as claimed. Verdigets discloses that retention member 30 clips to post 28 to
secure retention member 30 in a conveyor module. Verdigets, 3:39--60,
Figs. 3---6. Verdigets discloses that post 28 supports retention member 30 in
all positions, to include the first blocking position (Figs. 5 (hardline ), 6A)
and in the second open position 30' (Figs. 5 (dashed line), 6B). Id.
Even if post 28 could be viewed as supporting retention member 30
when retainer 30' is in a second position, the Examiner has not established
that post 28 supports retainer 30 "in a middle 50% of its length" as claimed. 2
Post 28 only supports shank 36 near its fixed end at bend 32 when retention
member 30' is in a "second position" as shown in Figure 5 in dashed lines.
See Reply Br. 5---6. The Examiner's finding that post 28 supports retention
member 30 at its fixed end (Ans. 3) does not explain how post 28 supports
retention member 30 at a location in a middle 50% of the length of retainer
30, i.e., along the length of shank 36 between the fixed end at bend 32 and
the free end at retainer head 34.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 12 or their dependent
claims 2---6, 8-10, 13, and 16.
1 Appellant discloses that stopper 35 restricts the amount of deformation that
retainer 31 undergoes as retainer 31 is bent about its fixed end 32 to prevent
retainer 31 from exceeding its design stress and deforming. Spec. 8:23-9:2.
Stopper 35 "support[s] the retainer 31 at at least one point in the midportion
of the retainer 31, i.e., in the middle 50% of the length of the retainer 31 and
resist[s] further bending deformation of the retainer 31." Id. at 9:2-5.
2 Appellant discloses that "[t]he length of the retainer 31 as defined here is
the distance measured along the bottom surface of the retainer 31 between
the free end 33 and the point closest to the fixed end 32 .... " Spec. 9:6-8
(emphasis added), Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7-10.
4
Appeal2014-002269
Application 12/742,860
Claim 7 as unpatentable over Verdigets and Weiser
The Examiner found that Weiser teaches a retainer and stopper that
are formed of different materials, as recited in claim 7, which depends from
claim 1. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that Weiser does not remedy the
deficiencies of Verdigets as to claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. We agree. Thus, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16.
REVERSED
5