Ex Parte Berlingen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

10888278 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

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.
10/888,278 07/09/2004 Detlev Berlingen A-3996 4823
24131 7590 03/26/2013
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte DETLEV BERLINGEN, ULRICH FELLENBERG,
FRANK GUNSCHERA, SVEN LIPPARDT, and
FRANK SCHRAMM
____________________

Appeal 2012-001176
Application 10/888,278
Technology Center 3600
____________________

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

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001176
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, 5-8, 11, 12, and 22.
Specifically, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kelm (US 2002/0043758 A1, pub.
Apr. 18, 2002), Bolza-Schünemann (US 3,942,787, iss. Mar. 9, 1976,
hereinafter “Bolza”1), and Maul (US 2002/0135123 A1, pub. Sep. 26, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kelm, Bolza, Maul, and DeMoore (US 5,419,254, iss.
May 30, 1995). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
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 having respective diametric
clearances, 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, said vacuum channels having
openings, said openings and a vacuum connection together
forming a rotary valve for cyclically applying the vacuum to
said vacuum channels; and
a chain conveyor having a circulation path, said delivery
drum being disposed within said circulation path, said chain
conveyor having gripper bridges, said gripper bridges plunging

1 Appellants and the Examiner both refer to this patent as “Bolza,” so we do
likewise.
Appeal 2012-001176
Application 10/888,278
3
into said diametric clearances during circulation of said gripper
bridges;
a second drum, said second drum and said delivery drum
forming a sheet transfer point at which said second drum
successively transfers the sheets to said gripper bridges;
said rotary valve being disposed such that said delivery
drum is pneumatically active only within a vacuum-active
angular range, said vacuum-active angular range beginning
substantially only at said sheet transfer point.
OPINION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 depends in part on the
Examiner’s finding that “Bolza teaches a delivery drum having . . . a
pneumatically vacuum-active angular range, the vacuum-active angular
range beginning substantially only at the sheet transfer point (16 and 18).”
Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that “Bolza does not disclose that the suction drum
(1-4) is active only within an angular range.” App. Br. 13. We agree with
Appellants.
Bolza discloses that
[c]ontrol of suction of the suction drums 1 to 4 is effected by
means of valves 16, which are located between a suction source
not shown in the figures, and suction chambers 18. These are
located inside the suction drums 1 to 4 . . . . Suction drums 1 to
4 are, at their circumference, provided with holes 20 through
which the sheet is sucked and is driven when the suction drums
1 to 4 are rotating.
Bolza, col. 2, ll. 33-45.
Aside from this disclosure, Bolza does not elaborate on how the
suction of the suction drums 1 to 4 is controlled. The Examiner does not
explain the basis for the finding that Bolza teaches a delivery drum having a
Appeal 2012-001176
Application 10/888,278
4
pneumatically vacuum-active angular range beginning substantially only at
the sheet transfer point.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of its
dependent claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 22 as unpatentable over Kelm, Bolza, and
Maul, because it is grounded in part on an unsupported finding that Bolza
teaches a delivery drum having a pneumatically vacuum-active angular
range beginning substantially only at the sheet transfer point.
We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable
over Kelm, Bolza, Maul, and DeMoore, which is also grounded in part on
the same unsupported finding.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11, 12, and 22 is
reversed.
REVERSED

mls