DOOSAN MACHINE TOOLS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2020

14876895 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2020)

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.
14/876,895 10/07/2015 Jae Doo SIM 5445-0009 1690
22429 7590 09/09/2020
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LOGAN, KYLE O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2020 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):
docketing@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAE DOO SIM
____________

Appeal 2020-001562
Application 14/876,895
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Doosan
Machine Tool Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001562
Application 14/876,895

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A pallet transfer system, comprising:
a pallet storage arranged along a path for transferring a
pallet and having a plurality of pallets loaded therein;
a loading device arranged along the path and configured
to load a material onto the pallet among the plurality of pallets
and withdraw the loaded material out from the pallet;
a material processing device arranged along the path and
configured to process the material loaded on the pallet;
a pallet transfer device installed on the path and
configured to mount the pallet thereon and move along the path
so as to transfer the mounted pallet to the loading device, the
pallet storage, or the material processing device;
a detector installed on the pallet transfer device and
configured to detect information on a load applied to the pallet
transfer device;
a controller connected with the pallet transfer device and
the detector, and configured to control a transfer speed of the
pallet transfer device according to load information detected by
the detector; and
an input device connected with the controller and
configured to input predetermined load information to be
applied to the pallet transfer device,
wherein, when the load information is not detected by the
detector, the controller controls the transfer speed of the pallet
transfer device based on the predetermined load information
input by the input device.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).

REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.

Appeal 2020-001562
Application 14/876,895

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a loading device arranged along the path
and configured to load a material onto the pallet among the plurality of
pallets and withdraw the loaded material out from the pallet.” Appeal Br. 11
(Claims App.) (“loading device limitation”). The Examiner construes the
loading device limitation as a means-plus-function element in accordance
with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), “because [the element] is described solely in terms
of function.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner states, “[t]he term ‘device’ is a
verbal construct which operates much like the more commonly used term
‘means’ which courts have found to be a generic placeholder and void of any
structural limitation.” Ans. 5. Accordingly, the Examiner construes the
element to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification
for performing the function of loading and unloading material to and from a
pallet. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines, however, that the
Specification fails to disclose “a material loading device or any structure for
loading and withdrawing material from a pallet.” Id. The Examiner notes
that the Specification describes “‘a setup unit for inserting a material onto
and withdrawing the material out from a pallet,’” but finds there is no
description of the corresponding structure of the setup unit. Id. at 3–4; see
Spec. ¶¶ 35, 39–40.2 Therefore, the Examiner determines that the loading
device limitation is indefinite. Id. at 4.
In determining whether a claim element is a means-plus-function
element, when the claim element does not include the word “means,” there
is a rebuttable presumption that pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph, or § 112(f),

2 All references herein to the specification (“Spec.” or “Specification”) refer
to the substitute Specification filed on January 26, 2017.
Appeal 2020-001562
Application 14/876,895

4
does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). This presumption can be overcome by
demonstrating that the claim element recites “function without reciting
sufficient structure for performing [the] function.” Id. at 1349 (quotation
marks and citation omitted). “The standard is whether the words of the
claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a
sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. “Generic terms
such as . . . ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than
verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to
using the word ‘means’ because they typically do not connote sufficiently
definite structure and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Id. at 1350
(citation omitted, emphasis added). If the presumption is overcome, then it
must be “determine[d] what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification
corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. at 1351. If adequate
corresponding structure is not disclosed, then the claim is indefinite. Id. at
1352.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of the loading
device limitation is erroneous. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant indicates that set-up
unit 300 corresponds to the recited loading device. Id. at 4. As for set-up
unit 300, Appellant asserts,
the set-up unit 300 may enable a user to mount the material 10
on the pallet 110 or enable a user to withdraw out a completely
processed workpiece loaded on the pallet 110. Particularly, a
separate automation process for inserting the material 10 onto
and withdrawing the material 10 out from the pallet 110 by the
set-up unit 300 may be further provided. That is, the set-up unit
300 may withdraw out the completely processed workpiece or
insert the material 10 for processing onto the pallet 110.
Id. at 8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 39, 40, Fig. 1).
Appeal 2020-001562
Application 14/876,895

5
This contention fails to identify any structure of set-up unit 300 that
corresponds to the recited function of the loading device, that is, “to load a
material onto the pallet among the plurality of pallets and withdraw the
loaded material out from the pallet.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). In fact,
the Examiner points out that Appellant’s Specification provides no
description of the corresponding structure of the set-up unit. Ans. 6.
Appellant also contends that the term “loading device,” “so-called as a
loading station or set-up unit,” is well known in the machining industry.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that Nakamura3 discloses a “loading
station” for loading material onto pallets. Id. at 8–9 (quoting Nakamura col.
2, ll. 52–64, Fig. 1). Nakamura describes,
[r]eferring to FIG. 1, the loading station 201 has
underneath it, a lifter 203 for supporting a carrier pallet 206
carrying workpieces 207 thereon with a skid 205 interposed
therebetween.
The lifter 203 is provided with a support mechanism (not
shown) such as a hydraulic cylinder and designed to support
from under the carrier pallet 206 that carries workpieces 207,
slightly and correspondingly moving downward as a function of
the total weight of the workpieces 207 loaded on the carrier
pallet 206.
Nakamura col. 2, ll. 55–64 (boldface omitted).
Appellant’s contentions regarding the meaning of the term loading
device are unpersuasive for several reasons. First, this term is not described
in Appellant’s Specification. Second, the term “device” is considered a
generic term or “nonce word.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Additionally,
the adjective “loading” does not connote a particular structure of the loading

3 US 5,920,480, issued July 6, 1999, which Appellant states “is previously
cited by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appeal 2020-001562
Application 14/876,895

6
device. Third, Nakamura describes a “loading station,” not a “loading
device,” and thus, does not show that the recited term is well known in the
machining industry. Moreover, Appellant does not show with evidence that
Nakamura’s loading station, or some element(s) thereof, necessarily
correspond(s) to the claimed loading device or the disclosed set-up unit.
Accordingly, to the extent Appellant’s position is that the structure of the
claimed loading device or the disclosed set-up unit, for performing the
claimed function, is well known in the art, as purportedly evidenced by
Nakamura, we are not persuaded.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
dependent claims 2–8, which incorporate the loading device limitation of
claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8 112(f)/112(b) 112(f)
Indefiniteness
1–8

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