Ex Parte Berlingen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2009

10888278 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DETLEV BERLINGEN, ULRICH FELLENBERG, FRANK
GUNSCHERA, SVEN LIPPARDT, and FRANK SCHRAMM
____________

Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 June 24, 2009
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and STEVEN D.A.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Detlev Berlingen et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 11, and 12, which are
the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a machine for processing
sheets, the machine having a delivery including a delivery drum disposed
within the circulation path of a chain conveyor and acted on pneumatically
by having a vacuum applied thereto. Spec. 1:7-9, 2:5-9, and 8:1-6.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim involved in
this appeal.
1. A machine for processing sheets, comprising:
a delivery for delivering the sheets, said
delivery having a delivery drum acted on
pneumatically by having a vacuum applied thereto,
said delivery drum having disks for carrying the
sheet, each of said disks defining respective
vacuum channels for holding the sheets, at least
one of said disks being adjustably mounted relative
to another of said disks in a direction of a width of
the sheets; and
a chain conveyor having a circulation path,
said delivery drum being disposed within said
circulation path.

Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

3
The Rejections
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 4-6, 11, and 12 as being unpatentable over Kelm (US
2002/0043758 A1, published Apr. 18, 2002), Bolza-Schünemann (US
3,942,787, issued Mar. 9, 1976, hereinafter “Bolza”), and Maul (US
2002/0135123 A1, published Sep. 26, 2002); and claims 7 and 8 as being
unpatentable over Kelm, Bolza, Maul, and DeMoore (US 5,419,254, issued
May 30, 1995).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ISSUE
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the patentability
of dependent claims 4-6, 11, and 12 apart from independent claim 1. See
App. Br. 10 and 11. Therefore, these claims stand or fall with claim 1 in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).
The Examiner’s position in rejecting claim 1 is that Kelm describes all
of the limitations of claim 1, including a delivery drum (drive sprocket 4.3),
but does not describe the delivery drum having a vacuum applied thereto by
means of vacuum channels defined in delivery drum disks for carrying the
sheet, with at least one of the disks being adjustably mounted relative to
another of said disks in a direction of a width of the sheets. Ans. 4.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious, in view of the
additional teachings of Bolza and Maul, to provide, on the delivery drum of
Kelm, sheet supporting disks having vacuum channels defined therein, with
Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

4
the disks being adjustable relative to one another, for the purpose of
transporting sheets of different formats. Ans. 4-5.
In contesting the rejection as to claim 1, Appellants contend that
element 4.3 of Kelm is simply a drive sprocket, similar to sprocket 12
described in the present application, and not a “delivery drum.” App. Br. 9-
10. Specifically, Appellants argue that Kelm does not disclose any disks
between “the chain sprockets (4.3),” and thus does not disclose a delivery
drum. Reply Br. 3. Thus, according to Appellants, “the references do not
show or suggest a chain conveyor having a circulation path, the delivery
drum being disposed within the circulation path, as recited in claim 1.” App.
Br. 10. Appellants do not discuss the teachings of Bolza and Maul
additionally relied upon in rejecting claim 1.
In contesting the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as being unpatentable
over Kelm, Bolza, Maul, and DeMoore, Appellants simply argue that
DeMoore does not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the
combination of Kelm, Bolza, and Maul. App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, the issue raised in this appeal is:
Does Appellants’ argument that drive sprocket 4.3 of Kelm is not a
“delivery drum” demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that the combined teachings of Kelm, Bolza, and Maul would have rendered
obvious a sheet processing machine as called for in claim 1, having a
delivery drum disposed within the circulation path of a chain conveyor, the
delivery drum having a vacuum applied thereto by means of vacuum
channels defined in delivery drum disks for carrying the sheet, with at least
one of the disks being adjustably mounted relative to another of said disks in
a direction of a width of the sheets?
Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

5

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE
1. Kelm describes a delivery for a sheet processing machine. The
delivery includes a chain conveyor 4 having conveyor chains 4.1,
gripper bridges 4.2, “a drive sprocket 4.3 and a guide sprocket 4.4.”
Para. [0061].
2. Kelm does not specify whether the drive sprocket 4.3 is, or includes, a
“delivery drum.”
3. Kelm does not specify whether there is any structure disposed
between the chains, in a coaxial relationship with the drive sprocket
4.3, that supports the sheets as they are transferred onto the chain
conveyor.
4. The Examiner finds that Kelm discloses all of the limitations of claim
1, including a delivery drum (drive sprocket 4.3) within the circulation
path of the chain conveyor, except that Kelm does not disclose that
the delivery drum comprises disks defining vacuum channels and has
a vacuum applied thereto. Ans. 4. The only aspect of that finding
contested by Appellants is that drive sprocket 4.3 is a “delivery
drum.” App. Br. 9-10.
5. Appellants describe a “delivery drum 7” as the type that “is referred to
as a skeleton drum and has disks 11 that carry the sheets 1 and are
seated at a distance from one another on a rotating axle 25.” Spec. 11-
12. Sprockets 12 that engage in the chain teeth and form a part of the
chain conveyor 6 are seated on axle 25. Id. Therefore, a structure
comprising transversely spaced sheet-supporting structure carried on a
Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

6
rotating axle would be a “delivery drum” as described by Appellants’
Specification.
6. Maul describes a sheet delivery for a rotary printing machine. The
delivery comprises a chain conveyor 3.5 including two pairs of chains
3.10' entrained around four sprocket wheels 3.11', which rotate on a
common rotary shaft 3.26, and gripper bars 3.27 carried by a first of
the chains. Para. [0064]. Sheet supports 1.16' rotate together with the
sprocket wheels 3.11' and form pitch surfaces 1.17 concentric with the
shaft 3.26 for pressing the side margins of the sheet 2.2 against the
impression cylinder 1.7. Para. [0065]. Suction grippers 1.18 are
disposed downline from sheet supports 1.16' and revolve together
with the sheet supports 1.16' to lift the trailing margin of the sheet
from the impression cylinder 1.7. Para. [0070]. See figs. 2 and 4.
7. Maul teaches adjustability of the spacing between sheet supports 1.16
to calibrate the sheet supports to the nonprinted side margins of the
sheets. Para. [0059].
8. Bolza describes a delivery drum comprising four coaxial suction
drums 1 to 4 positioned on a shaft 12. Col. 2, ll. 19-20; figs. 1 and 2.
Suction drums 1 to 4 are provided at their peripheral circumference
with holes 20 in communication with a vacuum source to attract and
seize the sheets. Col. 2, ll. 16-18 and 42-45.
9. The Examiner finds that Bolza teaches a delivery drum comprising a
plurality of disks (drums 1 to 4) comprising openings 20 and a
vacuum connection 16. Ans. 4. Appellants do not contest this
finding.

Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In order for a claim to “a structure already known in the prior art that
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field” to be patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination must do more
than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Likewise, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” Id.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
ANALYSIS
Appellants hinge their entire position that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over Kelm, Bolza, and Maul on the
argument that Kelm’s drive sprocket 4.3 is not, and does not include, a
“delivery drum” as contended by the Examiner. Appellants do not contest
the Examiner’s finding that Kelm describes all other elements of claim 1.
Fact 4.
Kelm does not expressly describe a “delivery drum” within the chain
conveyor 4 at or near the vicinity of drive sprocket 4.3. Facts 1-3. Maul,
however, evidences that it was known in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention to provide sheet supporting structure carried by the axle between
the drive sprockets within the circulation path of the chain conveyor at the
location designated by Kelm as drive sprocket 4.3. Fact 6. The sheet
supporting structure described by Maul (Fact 6) is a “delivery drum,” as that
Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

8
terminology is used by Appellants (Fact 5). Therefore, to the extent that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Kelm’s
description of conveyor 4 and drive sprocket 4.3 as implicitly including a
delivery drum coaxial with drive sprocket 4.3, such a person would have
readily envisaged one at that location, given the teachings of Maul. As such,
the provision of a delivery drum coaxial with the drive sprocket 4.3 of Kelm
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellants’ invention. Thus, Appellants’ argument that Kelm does not
disclose a delivery drum at drive sprocket 4.3 on the chain conveyor does
not demonstrate reversible error in the rejection, which is based on the
combined teachings of Kelm, Bolza, and Maul.
Maul further describes suction grippers as part of the delivery drum.
Fact 6. Maul also teaches adjusting the transverse spacing of the sheet
supports to calibrate the supports to the nonprinted side margins of the
sheets (Fact 7), while Bolza describes a delivery drum wherein the suction
grippers are incorporated into the sheet supports, which take the form of
suction drums, or disks, having vacuum openings defined therein and
connected to a vacuum (Facts 8 and 9). Appellants have not presented any
arguments that convince us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious, in view of the additional teachings of Bolza and
Maul, to provide, on the delivery drum coaxial with drive sprocket 4.3 of
Kelm, sheet supporting disks having vacuum channels defined therein, with
the disks being adjustable relative to one another, for the purpose of
transporting sheets of different formats. Appellants also have not contended,
much less shown, that such modification would not result in the delivery
drum structure called for in claim 1.
Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

9

CONCLUSION
Appellants’ argument that drive sprocket 4.3 of Kelm is not a
“delivery drum” does not demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combined teachings of Kelm, Bolza, and Maul would
have rendered obvious a sheet processing machine as called for in claim 1,
having a delivery drum disposed within the circulation path of a chain
conveyor, the delivery drum having a vacuum applied thereto by means of
vacuum channels defined in delivery drum disks for carrying the sheet, with
at least one of the disks being adjustably mounted relative to another of said
disks in a direction of a width of the sheets.
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us that the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 4-6, 11, and 12, which stand or fall with claim 1, as
being unpatentable over Kelm, Bolza, and Maul should be reversed.
Inasmuch as Appellants have not demonstrated a deficiency in the
combination of Kelm, Bolza, and Maul, Appellants likewise have not
persuaded us that the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as being unpatentable over
Kelm, Bolza, Maul, and DeMoore should be reversed.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2008-006073
Application 10/888,278

10

LV

LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480