Ex Parte Corlett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2017

13994263 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2017)

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.
13/994,263 06/14/2013 Rick Corlett 790063.00581 8777
26710 7590
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
NICHOLSON III, LESLIE AUGUST
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2017 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICK CORLETT, MIKE CHIN, and
DEAN A. WIETING
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,2631
Technology Center 3600
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—17 and 20-23, which are all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Rexnord Industries, LLC as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,263
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gripper attachment. Claim 17 is the only
independent claim, and is reproduced below:
17. A gripper chain assembly, comprising:
a first chain capable of traveling in a path direction;
a first gripper attachment having a first base mounted to
the first chain;
a first plurality of resilient fingers defining at least one row
of individual fingers extending from the first base and
substantially aligned transversely to the path direction; and
a second chain adjacent the first chain capable of traveling
in the path direction;
a second gripper attachment having a second base
mounted to the second chain;
a second plurality of resilient fingers defining at least one
row of individual fingers extending from the second base toward
the first plurality of resilient fingers, wherein when an article is
between the first plurality of resilient fingers and the second
plurality of resilient fingers, each of the fingers of the first and
second plurality of resilient fingers substantially independently
deflect and flex from a natural unengaged position to engage and
generally conform to the article.
App. Br. A-4 (Appendix A).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Bavelloni
Hodlewsky
Egger
US 4,537,301 Aug. 27, 1985
US 5,219,065 June 15, 1993
US 7,032,737 B2 Apr. 25, 2006
2
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,263
REJECTIONS
Claims 17, 1—16, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Egger and Bavelloni. Final Act. 2.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Egger, Bavelloni, and Hodlewsky. Final Act. 7.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Egger and Bavelloni?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 17 as being obvious over the
combination of Egger and Bavelloni. Egger relates to “a conveying
apparatus for transporting open containers.” Egger, Abstract. The
conveying apparatus includes “gripping elements [ ] adapted to grasp and
guide the containers, such that additional guiding elements can be avoided.”
Id. In setting forth the rejection, the Examiner relies primarily on Egger,
finding it teaches most of the limitations of claim 17; however, the Examiner
finds that Egger is deficient because although it teaches “a plurality of
resilient fingers extending from the first base and substantially aligned
transversely to the path direction,” Final Act. 2—3, it does not teach the
plurality of fingers “defm[e] at least one row of individual fingers.” To cure
this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Bavelloni, which relates to a
“pressure shoe structure” used in a “plate glass conveyor belt whereon [ ]
plate glass is transported edgewise” for beveling or chamfering. Bavelloni
3
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,263
col. 1,11. 6—10. Applying Bavelloni to Egger, the Examiner finds the
combination “teaches a plurality of resilient fingers (4) defining at least one
row of individual fingers.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner then finds it would
have been obvious to incorporate the row of individual fingers from
Bavelloni into the device taught by Egger “for the purpose of providing
individual control and engagement of the article along its length, thus
preventing rotation or displacement of the article during conveyance.” Final
Act. 7; Ans. 15.
Appellants contend the Examiner has improperly combined Egger and
Bavelloni for several reasons. App. Br. 4—6. First, Appellants argue the
Examiner “has impermissibly defined a problem of rotation of displacement
of an article being conveyed” based on the disclosure expressing a need for
secure engagement of an article. App. Br. 5 (citing Spec. 1 5). Appellants
further argue the rationale suggested by the Examiner is flawed because
“control and engagement of an article along its length to prevent rotation or
displacement” is not necessary or even a concern in Bavelloni. App. Br. 5.
More specifically, Appellants contend because Bavelloni is directed to a
plate glass cutting machine which carries a single uniformly-shaped sheet of
plate glass, there is no concern rotation or displacement or a need to provide
individual control, as a single large piece of glass is the only item fed
through the conveyor in Bavelloni. App. Br. 5—6. Finally, Appellants argue
the Examiner’s rationale “ignores substantial difference[s] between handling
containers, such as disclosed in Egger, and plate glass, as disclosed in
Bavelloni”. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellants, the fingers in Bavelloni
are necessarily stiff because they are designed to tightly hold plate glass,
which would discourage an ordinarily skilled artisan from using them in a
4
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,263
way that they independently deflect and flex to hold drink bottles such as
those shown in Egger. Reply Br. 4—5.
We are persuaded that the Examiner has erred. As noted above, the
Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to
modify the single finger of Egger with the multiple finger configuration of
Bavelloni because doing so would “provide individual control and
engagement of the article along its length, thus preventing rotation or
displacement of the article during conveyance.” Final Act. 7; Ans. 15. We
agree with Appellants that a skilled artisan would not look to Bavelloni to
provide this benefit. Bavelloni is primarily concerned with providing a
solution to the problem that certain small pieces of glass are too small to be
effectively fed through glass edge processing equipment. Bavelloni col. 1,
11. 16—26. The solution proposed by Bavelloni to the problem of small glass
pieces is the use of a non-interfering small plate that can be extended into
the space between the fingers and the surface supporting the glass place to
secure a small glass plate that does not extend from the supporting surface
into the fingers. Bavelloni col. 1,11. 3 5—48.
In contrast, Egger relates to a conveyor of open containers such as
empty bottles through a cleaning station. We do not agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve the
bottle conveyor of Egger would look to Bavelloni to “provide individual
control and engagement of the article along its length” to prevent rotation or
displacement during conveyance. We note Egger’s device appears to
already provide individual control and engagement of bottles. For example,
Egger states:
5
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,263
FIG. 3 clearly illustrates that no further guiding means are
provided for guiding the containers B, e.g. bottles, but that the
guiding and conveying of the containers B is performed
exclusively by means of the gripping elements 12, 13. The lips
15a, 15b of the gripping elements are made of an elastic material,
adjusted to the materials of the containers B to be conveyed such
that a high frictional force is developed between the particular
gripping elements 12, 13 and the container B to be conveyed.
Thus, no relative movement between the lips of the gripping
elements 12, 13 and the related container B occurs during the
transport of the containers.
Egger col. 6,11. 20-31.
We further note that, contrary to the Examiner’s rationale of
preventing rotation of items as they move along the belt, Egger actually
rotates them by purpose and design as shown in Figure 4, reproduced below.
i
I U V V 1 ; / —
F?S'> „
—«ci : i : I !^%V \ ' . £ " .,0s , *, .«
\
~T
tu
Figure 4 of Egger shows a conveyor belt with gripping elements securing
individual items and rotating them up to 180 degrees as they move along the
conveyor belt
Egger describes this rotational movement, stating “[t]his illustration clearly
exhibits that the containers B are rotated along the input area by 180° around
the central longitudinal access of the conveying apparatus 1.” Egger col. 6,
11. 56—59. This rotational movement is a central aspect of Egger’s design.
6
Appeal 2016-001335
Application 13/994,263
Without it, the containers in the conveyor would not reliably be able to be
processed through a cleaning station or a draining station in which “any fluid
possibly present in the containers can flow out under the influence of
gravity.” Egger col. 7,11. 2—3. As such, the Examiner’s rationale of
incorporating Bavelloni to prevent rotation does not support the proposed
combination.
In sum, we find the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Egger to
incorporate Bavelloni’s longitudinal row configuration of blocks does not
articulate reasoning with rational underpinnings, as it is inconsistent with the
purpose and operation of Egger. Moreover, we are not persuaded a person
of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve upon a bottle conveyor such as
Egger would have looked to a very different type of conveying device such
as Bavelloni without a clear suggestion for doing so. The Examiner’s
reasoning does not provide any such suggestion. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, nor do we sustain the rejection
of claims 1—16 and 20—23 which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—17 and 20—23 is reversed.
REVERSED
7