Ex Parte Farmer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 2, 2010

11033851 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GEOFFREY A. FARMER and KEITH G. R. WATTS
____________________

Appeal 2009-007297
Application 11/033,851
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007297
Application 11/033,851
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
21-24, 28, 30-33, 37 and 38. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a sheet accumulation barrier. Claim 21,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A linkage arrangement for handling sheets in an
accumulator, the sheets being conveyed along a sheet path,
comprising:
an accumulation gate pivotally mounted to a support
structure of the accumulator and having a stop surface
traversing the sheet path, the stop surface being movable
between an interference position and a release position, the
interference position inhibiting the travel of sheets along the
sheet path, and the release position releases the sheets for
continued travel along the sheet path;
a locking over-center mechanism including a
longitudinally aligned actuating arm and connecting arm, the
actuating arm pivotally mounted to the support structure about a
rotational axis and the connecting arm pivotally mounted to the
accumulation gate at one end and pivotally mounted to the
actuating arm at the other end,
whereby, in response to a force applied to the stop
surface in the direction of the sheet path, the locking over-
center mechanism inhibits motion of the accumulation gate
when disposed in the interference position,
whereby, in response to a moment load applied to the
actuating arm, the locking over-center mechanism releases the
accumulation gate from the interference position to the release
position.

Appeal 2009-007297
Application 11/033,851
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bedzyk US 5,215,302 Jun. 1, 1993

REJECTIONS
Claims 21-24, 28, 30-33, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Bedzyk. Ans. 3.

OPINION
Appellants’ argument that Bedzyk does not disclose longitudinally
aligned arms, and therefore does not anticipate independent claims 21 and
30, is persuasive. Br. 11. The Examiner’s contention that Bedzyk’s crank 82
“is capable of being modeled as a bar member” (Ans. 3) relates to what
Bedzyk’s crank could be as opposed to what it actually is. This is not
relevant to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Examiner’s statement
constitutes an admission that Bedzyk’s device, without modification, does
not contain each and every element of the claims. Thus, the Examiner has
failed to establish that Bedzyk anticipates independent claims 21 and 30,
along with dependent claims 22-24, 28, 31-33, 37 and 38.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-24, 28,
30-33, 37, and 38 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-007297
Application 11/033,851
4

nlk

PITNEY BOWES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECH. LAW DEPT.
35 WATERVIEW DRIVE
MSC 26-22
SHELTON CT 06484