Ex Parte Baumann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2014

12298678 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MICHAEL BAUMANN and HERBERT FELLNER
____________________

Appeal 2012-004114
Application 12/298,678
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
34, 37–52, 55–61, and 64. Claims 1–33, 35, 36, 53, 54, 62, and 63 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device and method for depalletizing
stacked bundles. Claim 61, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
Appeal 2012-004114
Application 12/298,678
2
61. A method for depalletizing stacked containers located one
above another in a stack, comprising the steps of:
moving an assembly over at least an uppermost container
in said stack, said assembly comprising two movable support
base members each having a leading edge at which a roller is
mounted, said support base members being initially positioned
to form an open space between the respective rollers;
positioning said assembly relative to the uppermost
container to cause the uppermost container to be located in said
open space while frictionally engaging opposite sides of said
uppermost container with the respective rollers;
repositioning said assembly to bring said rollers beneath
said uppermost container and closing said support base
members beneath said uppermost container while said
uppermost container rides on said rollers, to bring said leading
edges of said support base members toward each other to
produce a support base beneath said uppermost container; and
lifting said uppermost container off of said stack on said
opposite sides thereof with said support base beneath said
uppermost container.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Verrinder
Veldhuizen
Roth
Hurliman
Squires
Labell
US 3,263,829
US 4,453,874
US 5,051,058
US 5,082,319
US 5,088,783
US 6,164,900
Aug. 2, 1966
Jun. 12, 1984
Sep. 24, 1991
Jan. 21, 1992
Feb. 18, 1992
Dec. 26, 2000
Naldi
During
US 2002/0028130 A1
DE 0257447
Mar. 7, 2002
Mar. 2, 1988

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 37, 39, 49, 61, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over During and Verrinder.
Appeal 2012-004114
Application 12/298,678
3
2. Claims 34, 50-–52, and 55–60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over During, Verrinder, and Hurliman.
3. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over During, Verrinder, and Veldhuizen.
4. Claim 40–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over During, Verrinder, and Roth.
5. Claims 43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over During, Verrinder, and Naldi.
6. Claims 45 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over During, Verrinder, and Squires.
7. Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over During, Verrinder, Squires, and Labell.

OPINION
Independent claim 61 requires, inter alia, “positioning said assembly
relative to the uppermost container to cause the uppermost container to be
located in said open space while frictionally engaging opposite sides of said
uppermost container with the respective rollers.” App. Br. 18 (emphasis
added). Independent claim 64 similarly requires, inter alia, “a positioner
that positions said assembly relative to the uppermost container to cause the
uppermost container to be located in said open space while frictionally
engaging opposite sides of said uppermost container with the respective
rollers.” App. Br. 19 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that Verrinder does not disclose these limitations.
See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants note that Verrinder
“merely teaches an elevator table T that is lowered to a position below the
surface of conveying rollers 32, so that the rollers 32 are positioned at the
Appeal 2012-004114
Application 12/298,678
4
level of the bottom of the items to be removed from a stack.” App. Br. 8.
Appellants further note that “[d]uring this positioning of the elevator table 2,
there is no frictional engagement between any item in the stack and any of
the rollers 32. Only subsequently are the conveyor rollers 32 moved beneath
the items to be depalletized.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis added). Based on the
facts noted, Appellants argue that Verrinder does not teach or suggest:
positioning an assembly relative to the uppermost container of
the stack so as to cause that uppermost container to be located
in an open space between two movable support base members,
while frictionally engaging opposite sides of the uppermost
container with the respective leading rollers of those support
base members, as explicitly required in each of claims 61 and
64.
Reply Br. 7.
We agree that Verrinder teaches a method wherein the step of
positioning the assembly is performed prior to the step of frictionally
engaging the side of the uppermost container. The Examiner does not
explain why it would be obvious to modify the method described by
Verrinder to perform positioning of the assembly relative to the uppermost
container of the stack while frictionally engaging the side of the uppermost
container as required by claim 61. Further, the Examiner does not explain
how Verrinder’s device is capable of positioning the assembly relative to the
uppermost container of the stack while frictionally engaging the side of the
uppermost container as required by claim 64. For these reasons, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 61 and 64, and
claims 37, 39, and 49 which depend therefrom.
Claims 34, 50–52, 55 and 56 depend from either claim 61 or claim 64.
Hurliman does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 61 and 64
Appeal 2012-004114
Application 12/298,678
5
discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 34, 50–52, 55, and 56.
Claim 38 depends from claim 64. Veldhuizen does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 64 discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38.
Claims 40–42 depend from claim 64. Roth does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 64 discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40–42.
Claims 43 and 44 depend from claim 64. Naldi does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 64 discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 43 and 44.
Claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 64. Squires does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 64 discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 45 and 46.
Claims 47 and 48 depend from claim 64. Labell does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 64 discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 47 and 48.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 34, 37–52, 55–61, and 64 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls