Ex Parte Demmeler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10571763 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
10/571,763 10/04/2006 Erwin Demmeler DEMM3003/JJC 8275
23364 7590 03/27/2013
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
SANDERS, HOWARD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2013 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 ERWIN DEMMELER, RALF HOBMEIER,
RAINER STOLL, and FRANK WERNER
____________________

Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-5, 7-13, 15-19 and 21. Claims 2, 6, 14 and 23 are objected to, and claims
20 and 22 are allowed. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

The invention is directed to an apparatus and method for avoiding
multiple picks during singling of sheet material such as in bank note
processing machines. Spec, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for avoiding multiple picks during the singling
of sheet material from a sheet stack comprising the steps of:
feeding sheet material in a transport direction from the
sheet stack to a singling gap by means of a feeding device, said
singling gap having a first gap side and a second gap side
opposite the first gap side, said first gap side defined as facing a
first side of the sheet material when passing the singling gap,
said second gap side defined as facing a second side of said
sheet material when passing the singling gap, and
singling the fed sheet material in the singling gap by
grasping a sheet of the fed sheet material from the first gap side
of the singling gap and guiding on the grasped sheet to a
transport device while simultaneously retaining further sheets
of the fed sheet material on the second gap side,
after the leading edge of the guided-on sheet has reached
a position after the singling gap in the transport direction,
activating a retaining device different from the feeding
device, which acts, in or before, relative to the transport
direction, the singling gap, on the fed sheet material from the
first gap side and retains sheet material carried along with the
guided-on sheet.

Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kyhl
Leuthold
US 3,988,017
US 4,717,137
Oct. 26, 1976
Jan. 5, 1988

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Kyhl. Ans. 3.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated
by Leuthold. Ans. 10.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-19, and 21 as anticipated by Kyhl.
Claims 1 and 3-5
The Examiner found that Kyhl discloses each step of claim 1
including feeding sheet material in a transport direction through a singling
gap defining a first gap side, i.e., a bottom side as seen in Kyhl’s Figure 2,
and a second gap side, i.e., the top side in Figure 2. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner
found that Kyhl’s conveyor belt 32 was a feeding device which feeds sheet
material in a transport direction (i.e., vertically downward in Kyhl’s Figure
2) to a singling gap broadly defined as extending between the sheet stack 26
and the nip formed between feeding belt 58 on the first gap side, and
scrubber 72 on the second gap side. Ans. 4.
Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s interpretation that Kyhl’s
conveyor belt 32 feeds sheet material “in a transport direction from the sheet
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
4
stack to a singling gap” as required by claim 1. Br. 13. Appellants contend
that “[t]here is no teaching in Kyhl of the conveyor belt (32) moving the
sheet material to a singling gap. Instead, the conveyor belt (32) merely
urges the sheet material toward the first stage feeder (22) which in turn
transports the sheet material in the feeder path (27).” Br. 13, citing Kyhl,
col. 2, ll. 49-52. Appellants also argue that the Examiner fails to specify
what elements of Kyhl are considered “a singling gap.” Ans 14.
In order to interpret Kyhl’s conveyor belt 32 as the feeding device, the
Examiner has broadly defined all of the structural and functional
components in Kyle subsequent to the sheet stack 26 as the “singling gap.”
Br. 3. This interpretation which includes the sheet feeders 22 and 23 and all
the other elements aside from the conveyor 32 and sheet stack 26 as the
singling gap is not a reasonable interpretation of a “singling gap.” Based on
our understanding of the plain meaning of the term, the singling gap in Kyhl
is either the nip formed between scrubber 63 and belt 50, or alternatively the
nip formed between scrubber 72 and belt 58. See Kyhl fig. 2. Kyhl explains
that at these singling gaps, “both scrubbers cooperate with their associated
feeders 22 and 23 to help separate workpieces before entering nip rollers 29
and 30 in the first feeder stage and nip rollers 73 and 74 in the second feeder
stage.” Kyhl col. 3, ll. 25-29. Applying the proper meaning of “singling
gap,” the transport direction is horizontally from left to right in Figure 2 of
Kyhl.
As pointed out by Appellants, it is Kyhl’s first stage feeder 22 which
transports the sheet material “from the sheet stack to a singling gap” as
required by claim 1. Br. 13. The conveyor 32 only actually delivers the
material to a sheet stack 26 for subsequent transport to the singling gap by
the first stage feeder 22. Appellants position is persuasive that the Examiner
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
5
erred in finding that Kyhl’s conveyor 32 is a feeding device feeding sheet
material in the transport direction as called for in claim 1. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5.
Claims 7 and 8
Appellants assert that as in claim 1, claim 7 includes the same
“singling gap” and “transport direction” limitations not found in Kyhl,
namely, “feeding sheet material in a transport direction from the sheet stack
to a singling gap by means of a feeding device.” Br. 16. However, as the
Examiner considers the first stage feeder 22 (and more specifically the
friction belt 50) from Kyhl to be the claimed feeding device (see Ans. 5-6),
rather than the conveyor belt 32 (considered the feeding device in the
rejection of claim 1), our analysis of the rejection of claim 1 does not apply
to the rejection of claim 7.
In response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, Appellants argue
that the scrubber 63, asserted by the Examiner as the “retaining device,”
does not close a feeding gap because “it is clearly taught by Kyhl that the
scrubber (63) is ‘stationary.’” Br. 16, citing Kyhl, col. 1, ll. 59-63. We are
not persuaded by this argument because whatever is meant in Kyhl by the
term “stationary,” read in context with the remainder of the references, it
does not mean “immovable.” Indeed, Kyhl discloses that the scrubber 63
pivots about a shaft 64 and is urged into the workpiece path by spring 65.
Kyhl, col. 3, ll. 19-21. Based on this disclosure, it appears that Kyhl’s
scrubber 63 is biased into the workpiece path by the spring 65 in a manner
which closes the feeding gap, and moveable out of the workpiece path in a
manner which opens the feeding gap, when a workpiece (feed sheet
material) is advanced into the scrubber 63 by the belt 50. As such, we do
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
6
not find sufficient evidence in Kyhl to support Appellants’ position that the
scrubber 63 is in fact stationary and immovable.
Based on the scrubber 63 being pivotally supported and spring biased
in the workpiece path we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s finding
that a feeding gap was closed by the scrubber 63, and that feed sheet
material was transported by the feed belt 50 “against the closed feeding gap”
as recited in claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8 has not been argued separately and falls with claim 7.
Claims 9-13, 17 and 18
The Examiner found with respect to claim 9, that as in claim 1, the
conveyor 32 was a feeding device feeding the sheet material in the
transportation direction from the sheet store towards a singling gap. Id. As
discussed supra in regards to claim 1, the Examiner’s interpretation of the
conveyor 32 as the claimed “feeding device for feeding sheet material in a
transportation direction from the sheet store to a singling gap” is incorrect
because the conveyor 32 merely influences the sheet stack 26 into the first
stage feeder 22. Contrary to the Examiner’s position, Kyhl is clear that it is
the first stage feeder 22 which is the feeding device which feeds the sheet
material in the “transportation direction from the sheet store to the singling
gap” as called for in claim 9. We thus cannot sustain the rejections of claims
9-13, 17 and 18.
Claim 15
The Examiner found that Kyhl disclosed all the structural elements of
apparatus claim 15 including a spring 65 (See Kyhl, fig. 2 and col. 3, ll. 19-
21) acting as “a control for closing and opening the feeding gap.” Ans. 8.
The Examiner also determined that the feeding device 22 was activated by
the spring where the feeding gap was closed by the spring bias of the
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
7
scrubber 63, until a sheet of material was forced into the feeding gap and the
scrubber 63 opened the feeding gap against the bias of spring (control) 65.
Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner that in giving the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation that Kyhl’s spring 65 is ostensibly a “control” for
closing and opening of a feed gap acting in conjunction with the retaining
scrubber device 63. We do not agree that the spring 65 is a control that both
“activat[es] the feeding device” as well as “clos[es] and open[s] the feeding
gap.” The spring 65 controls, albeit passively, the scrubber device 63
adjacent the feeder 22 by urging the scrubber into a closed position but
allowing it to open when sheet material passes through. Claim 15, however,
requires that the control perform two claimed functions. The Examiner is
essentially reading out (or not addressing) one of those functions from the
claim by finding that the spring control, doing the same thing, satisfies both
claimed functions. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 16
Claim 16 includes the same structural and functional recitations as
discussed above in claim 15, namely, “a control for closing and opening the
feeding gap by means of the retaining device and for activating the feeding
device.” The Examiner again comports the spring 65 as Appellants’ claimed
control element. Ans. 9. For the same reasons as discussed supra we
determine that Kyhl does not disclose a control as called for in claim 16, and
we therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Claims 19, 21 and 231

1 Appellants indicated that claim 23 stands or falls with claim 19 (Br. 4),
claim 23 is only objected to by the Examiner and is not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
8
Appellants argue that Kyhl does not disclose an active adjustment
means as recited in claim 19, which permits the first retaining device to be
urged away from the area of the singling gap. Br. 18. Appellants contend
that this is because there is no description in Kyhl that the spring 65 moves
the scrubber 72 away from the belt and also again contends that Kyhl
teaches that the scrubber 72 is stationary. Id. Claim 19 simply requires that
the “adjustment means … permit the first retaining device to be urged
away.” While the spring 65 in Kyhl may not actively move the scrubber
away from the belt, the spring 65 permits the relative adjustment of the
scrubber 72 to accommodate sheet material being pulled into the nip by the
respective feed belt 58 including outward displacement of the scrubber 72
caused by sheet material being pulled past the scrubber 72. Kyhl, col. 3. ll.
19-21.
Based on this disclosure, it is more likely than not, that the spring
permits Kyhl’s scrubbers to be adjusted out of the workpiece path (i.e.,
urged away) in a manner which opens the feeding gap, when a workpiece
(fed sheet material) is advanced into the scrubber 72. We thus sustain the
rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Kyhl. Claim 21 has not been argued
separately and falls with claim 19.
Claim 15 as being anticipated by Leuthold.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 15 in view of Leuthold is
in error because “it is clear that the movable retaining element (23) would
not practically be used to close the separating gap (11) as mentioned in the
specification at column 5, first two paragraphs.” Br. 18. Appellants argue
that the intent of Leuthold is to prevent “wedging” of sheet material in a
feeding gap and that “[t]he wedging of sheets in a feeding gap results in
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
9
interrupting the separation process in its entirety” and thus contrary to the
express disclosure the gap would never actually be closed. Br. 19.
The Examiner points out that Leuthold discloses a control means 13
connected to retaining element 10 which opens and closes the feeding gap,
including “complete closure” of the feeding gap. Ans. 16 and see Leuthold,
col. 5, ll. 1-4. Appellants’ argument that the intent and teachings of
Leuthold are different from the explicit description in the reference is not
persuasive. Appellants’ remarks do not point to any specific language
within the claims to distinguish over the prior art, these remarks relating to
Leuthold’s disclosure amount to a general allegation that the claims define a
patentable invention. In view of Appellants’ remarks, we agree with the
Examiner that it is reasonable to rely upon the plain meaning of Leuthold’s
description which explicitly states that the gap can be completely closed.
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 15 in view of
Leuthold.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 as anticipated by Kyhl is
REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 7 and 8 as anticipated by Kyhl is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 9-13, 17 and 18 as anticipated by Kyhl is
REVERSED.
The rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Kyhl is REVERSED.
The rejection of claim 16 as anticipated by Kyhl is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 19 and 21 as anticipated by Kyhl is
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Leuthold is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2011-001426
Application 10/571,763
10

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) (2011).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls