Ex Parte Felton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

12381744 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/381,744 03/16/2009
25281 7590 10/18/2016
DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA
FIFTH STREET TOWERS
100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2250
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jarrod J. Felton
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
S897.125.102 8303
EXAMINER
DEUBLE, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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):
USPTO.PA TENTS@dbclaw.com
dmorris@dbclaw.com
DBCLA W-Docket@dbclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARROD J. FELTON
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jarrod J. Felton (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's May 13, 2013 Non-Final decision ("Non-Final Act.") rejecting
claims 1-9.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Superior Industries, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 10 is canceled. Amendment entered April 15, 2013, at 4.
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to a conveyor belt support
assembly for a load zone of bulk material transportation equipment." Spec.
i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 12 (Claims Appendix) of the
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A conveyor belt support for a load zone of a belt
conveyer system comprising a plurality of idler frames, each
idler frame of the plurality of idler frames, comprising:
an elongated shaft configured to be coupled to each
respective idler frame of the plurality of idler frames;
a support plate coupled to each shaft; and
a wear pad coupled to each support plate;
wherein each idler frame of the plurality of idler frames
is spaced apart from a respective adjacent idler frame by about
16 inches, and wherein the respective wear pads of adjacent
idler frames are spaced apart by about 6 inches, wherein the
wear pads provide the sole support for an edge portion of the
conveyor belt.
REJECTION
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Steeb (US 5,799,780, iss. Sept. 1, 1998) and Mott (US
6,269,943 Bl, iss. Aug. 7, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 4, and 5 together. App. Br. 6-
9. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 4 and 5 as standing or
falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Steeb
discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including, inter alia, a
2
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
plurality of idler frames (frames 62) 3, each containing wear pads (wear bars
76), but "does not disclose the spacing between the wear pads of adjacent
cartridge assemblies or the spacing between the adjacent idler frames."
Non-Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Mott discloses a load zone for
a conveyor belt in which idler frames (belt supports 30) "are spaced apart by
about 1 Yz feet or even closer, such as several inches," and reasons that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the Steeb system to
include such idler frame spacing to "prevent[] spillage in the loading area
and dissipate[] impact forces more effectively." Id. at 3--4. Continuing, the
Examiner determines that when the Steeb idler frames are spaced according
to the teachings of Mott, Steeb's wear pads of adjacent idler frames would
be spaced apart by about six inches. Id. at 4--5.
Appellant traverses, arguing that "Steeb does not teach a support
assembly for a load zone of a conveyor belt" and that "the Examiner [has]
not give[n] sufficient weight to the unique requirements of the load zone of a
conveyor belt system." App. Br. 7. According to Appellant, conveyor load
zones have unique requirements that other portions of the conveyor belt
system do not, such requirements including the ability to withstand forces
imparted by bulk material being dropped onto the belt that, unaddressed,
would cause the belt to sag and material to spill. Id. (citing Spec. i-f 4; Mott,
2:64--3: 10). Appellant contends that "the conveyor belt support assembly of
Steeb is neither suitable for nor intended for use in the load zone of a
conveyor belt" (id.) because "Steeb describes the conveyor belt only in
terms of transporting material between processing locations ... and makes
3 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the cited references.
3
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
no mention whatsoever of load zones or material settling zones" (id. at 8
(citing Steeb, 1:18-20)).
The Examiner answers that because Steeb discloses a conveyor
system that is intended to move bulk material in manufacturing and mining
environments, the Steeb conveyor "must inherently have some kind of 'load
zone'" in which such materials are placed on the belt. Ans. 5. Thus, the
Examiner concludes, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
modify the spacing of Steeb' s idler frames, as taught by Mott, "in a high
impact loading application ... so that material could be loaded onto the belt
of Steeb." Id. at 5---6.
Appellant replies that Steeb discloses a conveyor system to transport
materials "only in areas between processing locations in manufacturing and
mining environments," and materials are loaded onto the belt at such
processing locations. Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellant contends, Steeb's idler
assemblies are not intended for use at the processing locations, including the
processing station load zones. Id. Appellant further asserts that "the
Examiner ignores Mott's explicit teachings that conveyor belt slider beds,
where conveyor belts slide on a flat surface of low-friction plastic, are not
suitable for use in high impact loading areas." Id. at 3 (citing Mott, 1: 15-
29); see also App. Br. 8. Rather, Appellant argues, "Mott teaches that
rollers, such as the central roller 40 and winger rollers 42 ... should be
employed [in] loading zones." Id. (citing Mott, Fig. 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding Steeb.
Appellant cites the first sentence in the "Description of the Prior Art" section
of Steeb as purportedly evidencing that Steeb' s idler assemblies are not
4
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
suitable for use in load zones. App. Br. 7, 8; Reply Br. 2-3. The cited
sentence broadly describes conveyor systems in general (see Steeb 1: 18-20)
and, we find, does not limit the scope of the Steeb' s conveyor to exclude
known conveyor uses or components, such as loading materials thereon in a
load zone. As evidenced by Mott, conveyor systems include load zones, and
the belt may be supported by idler assemblies in such load zones. See, e.g.,
Mott Figs. 1 and 2. Appellant offers no persuasive evidence indicating that
Steeb's idler assemblies are incapable of such known use. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that attorney arguments or
conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness). Moreover, Appellant admits that the Steeb conveyor system
necessarily includes a load zone. Ans. 3. Even assuming, arguendo, that
Steeb does not disclose the use of idler frames 60 in a load zone, the
modification proposed by the Examiner would reasonably be expected to
make Steed's idler frames suitable for use in load zones.
Nor do we find Appellant's arguments regarding Mott persuasive.
Appellant suggests that Mott teaches that slider beds are not suitable for use
in loading zones and, therefore, the Examiner's proposed combination is
inappropriate. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. This argument is based on
Mott's discussion of prior art systems (Mott 1: 11-28) and, as such, might be
relevant to a proposed modification of Mott's conveyor system to include
slider beds in load zones, but it is not relevant to the Examiner's rejection
which includes no such modification. To the contrary, the Examiner
proposes to modify Steeb's conveyor system based on Mott's teaching of
spacing idler assemblies closer together in load zones to support the belt
5
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
against impact forces, including high impact forces. Non-Final Act. 3--4; see
also Mott 5:22-35.
Appellant also argues that were a skilled artisan to modify Steeb' s
conveyor system based on the teachings of Mott, such an artisan would
"replace the set of three rollers 40/42 of Mott with the set of three wear bars
7 6 of Steeb, but at the same time, [would] continue using the elongated,
longitudinally running slider bars 44 of Mott to provide continuous and
uninterrupted support for the edges of the conveyor belt." App. Br. 9 (citing
Mott, 4:52-55, Fig. 3). Continuing, Appellant contends that "[t]here is no
teaching or suggestion in either reference that such longitudinally extending
slider bars 44 should or could be eliminated," and because "the three prior
art rollers 14 of Steeb are clearly equivalent to the three rollers 40/42 of
Mott, ... the person of ordinary skill in the art is taught only to replace the
three rollers 40/42 of Mott with the three wear bars 76 of Steeb." Id.
The Examiner answers that although Mott teaches the use of slider
bars to "prevent sagging between adjacent belt supports ... , this is not the
only teaching of Mott. ... Mott also teaches that the close spacing of the
idler supports in the load zone advantageously prevents spillage and
dissipates forces more effectively." Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds
Mott to teach spacing the idler supports closer as the impact forces increase,
and reasons that "the spacing taught by Mott may be applied without the
additional teaching of a slider rail." Id. at 7.
Appellant replies that because Steeb teaches the substitution of wear
pads in place of rollers, and because "the wear bars 7 6 of Steeb are akin to
the rollers 40/21 of Mott," a skilled artisan "is not taught to simply place
6
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
idler assemblies more closely but [sic] together, but is also taught to add the
elongated, longitudinally running slider bars 44 of Mott to provide
continuous and uninterrupted support for the edges of the conveyor belt."
Reply Br. 4 (citing Steeb, 2:26-56, Figs. 1, 2b, and 5b; Mott, 4:52-55,
Fig. 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments, which, again, appear
to be directed to a modification of Mott's conveyor system. See, e.g., App.
Br. 9 (arguing that a skilled artisan would replace Mott's rollers with Steeb's
wear bars). These arguments do not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner's findings or reasoning, which are directed to a modification of
Steeb's conveyor system based on Mott's teaching of spacing idler
assemblies closer together in load zones.
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's suggestion that if a skilled
artisan were to apply Mott's teaching of spacing the idlers closer together in
the load zone to provide support against impact forces, such an artisan would
necessarily have to include all teachings of Mott, including the use of Mott's
slider bars. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007). Mott teaches the use of slider bars to provide edge support to
the conveyor belt. Mott 4:50-51. Mott also teaches spacing idler
assemblies closer together in load zones to support the belt against impact
forces, including high impact forces. Id. at 5:22-35. If a skilled artisan
wanted to provide edge support, such an artisan would modify Steeb' s
conveyor system to include Mott's slider bars. If a skilled artisan wanted to
provide load zone support, such an artisan would space the load zone idler
7
Appeal2014-009687
Application 12/3 81, 7 44
frames closer together. Appellant's arguments fail to persuade us that a
skilled artisan would be precluded from applying the separate teachings of
Mott individually.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as of independent claims 4 and 5,
which fall with claim 1, as being unpatentable over Steeb and Mott.
Appellant does not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of the dependent claims. See App. Br. 9-10. Therefore, we
likewise sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-9.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8