Ex Parte Fourney

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14847836 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/847,836 09/08/2015
9748 7590
LAITRAM, L.L. C.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
200 LAITRAM LANE
HARAHAN, LA 70123
12/20/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew L. Fourney
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.
2484A 1062
EXAMINER
HARP, WILLIAM RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
jcronvic@laitram.com
cbishop@laitram.com
donna.walker@laitram.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW L. FOURNEY
Appeal2018-002274
Application 14/847,836
Technology Center 3600
Before, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, LISA M. GUIJT, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Laitram, L.L.C., which the Appeal Brief
identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002274
Application 14/847,836
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "power-driven conveyors and
more particularly to guides positioned alongside or within a stream of
conveyed articles." Spec. 1:3--4. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1
is reproduced below.
1. A conveyor guide wall comprising:
a top rail and a bottom rail parallel to the top rail;
a plurality of columns of one or more rollers all arranged
between the top and bottom rails to rotate freely on parallel
axes of rotation;
wherein each of the one or more rollers includes:
a first side and a second side;
an outer periphery encircling the axis of rotation and
extending axially from the first side to the second side;
a plurality of voids extending through the roller from the
first side to the second side between the outer periphery
and the axis of rotation to absorb impacts against the
outer periphery of the roller.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 6-12, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Fuller2 and Krivec. 3
2. Claims 2-5 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fuller, Krivec, and Komylak. 4
2 U.S. Patent No. 5,143,200, issued September 1, 1992 ("Fuller").
3 U.S. Patent No. 4,168,771, issued September 25, 1979 ("Krivec").
4 U.S. Patent No. 3,037,603, issued June 5, 1962 ("Komylak").
2
Appeal2018-002274
Application 14/847,836
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Fuller discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, but does not disclose "a plurality of voids extending through the
roller." Final Act. 5. The Examiner found that Krivec discloses rollers
having the claimed voids, and determined that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the voids "to allow compression of
the roller." Id. The Examiner also found that "Krivec provides a motivation
for using voids in a roller ( controlling the speed of articles moving along the
rollers)," and that "such a motivation could reasonably extend to other
applications of articles moving along rollers." Id. at 2.
Appellant does not contend that the combination of Fuller and Krivec
fails to disclose any of the limitations of claim 1, but argues that "one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to add the roller
voids taught by Krivec to the rotators in the guide walls of Fuller." Appeal
Br. 4. Appellant contends that adding voids "to control the speed of articles
does not reasonably apply to rollers in a conveyor guide wall" because
Fuller can control speed by simply adjusting belt speed, while Krivec cannot
and must rely on gravity. Id. at 4--5. Appellant also contends that not every
article in Fuller contacts the guide rails, and therefore Krivec' s voids would
not effectively control the speed of a high-rate flow such as that used in
Fuller. Id. at 5. Appellant further contends that Krivec's stated advantage of
the voids----dissipating heat----does not apply to Fuller's application, which
does not need to bear the weight of the heavy loads used in Krivec.
In response, the Examiner found that Krivec' s voids provide a
"passive speed control to the articles, without the need for supervision or
electronic control," which is an advantage over rollers without such voids.
3
Appeal2018-002274
Application 14/847,836
Ans. 8. The Examiner also found that the failure of the rollers with voids to
impact every article as Appellant contends can actually be an advantage,
because the speed differential caused upon impact with the rollers would
"allow articles to pass by one another, which would assist in creating a
single file line," a stated goal of Fuller. Id. (citing Fuller, 2:47). The
Examiner also found that deformation of the rollers with voids could induce
a vibratory effect that would inhibit jamming, another advantage noted by
Fuller. Id. (citing Fuller, 4:12-15). Finally, the Examiner found that the
heat dissipation noted by Krivec increases the lifespan of the rollers, an
advantage that would still apply in the proposed combination. Id. at 8-9.
In reply, Appellant argues that Krivec' s voids serve to reduce the
speed of the articles, which is contrary to Fuller's stated purpose of
conveying articles at high speed. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant also argues that
technical differences render the combination unpredictable because the
"result of adding voids to side-wall rollers to control the speed of articles
atop a conveyor belt would not be predictable." Id. at 3.
Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error. First, Appellant's
primary argument, that adding Krivek' s voids would slow down the articles,
does not undermine the Examiner's findings that impacting a side wall with
rollers having voids, even with a reduction in speed, provides certain
benefits. For example, the Examiner found that a side wall having rollers
with voids provides "a passive speed control" that need not be supervised or
maintained with an electronic control. Ans. 8. Appellant does not address
directly this potential benefit. The Examiner also found that Fuller discloses
two goals, single file ordering of articles and vibration to inhibit jamming,
that the rollers with voids promote. See Ans. 8. Appellant does not directly
4
Appeal2018-002274
Application 14/847,836
respond to those findings, and does not persuade us that the Examiner erred
in making those findings, which standing alone provide rational
underpinnings for the proposed combination. 5 In addition, while Fuller
emphasizes the fast speed at which its articles are conveyed, Appellant does
not support adequately its position that having some articles slow down
when they impact the side wall affects the overall speed of the conveyance
of articles on the conveyor in a manner that would defeat the purpose of
Fuller or render the results unpredictable. See Reply Br. 2-3. In fact, as the
Examiner found, Fuller suggests that such impacts could provide benefits.
See Ans. 8.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant
does not raise any additional arguments regarding independent claim 10 or
the dependent claims apart from those made with respect to claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 4 ("Because all the rejections rely on combining the teachings of
Krivec with those of Fuller, .... [Appellant's] argument applies to all the
claims."). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-17 for the same
reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17.
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
5 We need not reach the Examiner's additional reasons for making the
combination, such as heat dissipation, given these unrebutted findings.
5