11557446 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2009)

Ex Parte Harding et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 12, 2009

11557446 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte RANPAK CORP. ____________________ Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Decided:1 June 12, 2009 ____________________ Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON, and MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 2 A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Ranpak Corp. (Ranpak), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. References Relied on by the Examiner Reichental et al. (Reichental) 5,203,761 Apr. 20, 1993 The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Reichental. The Invention The invention relates to a dunnage converter for converting fan folded stock material into a dunnage product. (Spec. 1:14-16.) A dunnage product is a protective packaging material used as void fill or cushioning during shipping. (Id. at 16:10-12.) Independent claim 1 is reproduced below (App Br. 17:2-8, Claims App’x): 1. A stand for a supply of fan-folded stock material for a dunnage conversion machine, comprising: a frame having a pair of transversely-spaced upright channel members between which a stack of fan-folded sheet stock material can be supported for supplying to an upstream end of a dunnage conversion machine, and a base on which the upright channel members are secured, wherein the upright channel members both define inwardly-facing channels for receiving a stack of fan-folded sheet stock material. Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 3 B. ISSUE Has Ranpak shown that the Examiner was incorrect in finding that Reichental discloses a pair of transversely-spaced upright channel members that both define inwardly-facing channels as required in claim 1? C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Figure 1 of Ranpak is reproduced below: Figure 1 depicts a dunnage conversion machine 10 having a stand 12 with a pair of transversely spaced upright channel members 22 (Spec. 16:1-17). Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 4 2. Figure 3 of Ranpak is reproduced below: Figure 3 shows that each channel member 22 defines a channel bounded by inner wall 30, inwardly extending front wall 34, and spring biased catches 52 (Spec. 17:7-18:13). 3. Reichental discloses an apparatus for fabricating cushioned dunnage material for use in packaging. (Reichental 1:6-8.) Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 5 4. Figure 1 of Reichental is reproduced below: Figure 1 shows a prospective view of mobile roll supply cart 12 arranged adjacent frame 14 which carries rugation device 11 that fabricates material for use as dunnage. (Id. at 3:61-4:16.) 5. Reichental discloses that mobile roll supply cart 12 includes a bottom frame 70 with pivotable wheels 71 and handle 74 located on one side of the frame. (Id. at 9:51-61.) 6. Reichental also states (id. at 9:61-65): A support pylon 75 extends upwardly from one end of the frame 70. In a preferred embodiment, the pylon 75 extends upwardly from the end of the frame 70 which is nearest the pivotable wheels 71 and handle 74. Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 6 D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses all elements of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). E. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejected each of claims 1-7 as anticipated by Reichental. Claims 2-7 depend from independent claim 1. We focus on the disputed limitations. Ranpak disputes that Reichental meets the requirements in claim 1 of “a frame having a pair of transversely-spaced upright channel members” where those members “define inwardly-facing channels for receiving a stack of fan-folded sheet stock material.” According to the Examiner, Reichental discloses “two different pylons 75 facing each other” (Ans. 3:6-7) and that those two pylons define “a channel in between them for the purpose of receiving a stock material via R.” (Ans. 6:7-8.) The Examiner concluded that that disclosure in Reichental satisfies the above-noted requirements of claim 1. Ranpak contends that Reichental discloses only one pylon 75. (Reply Br. 2:15.) Ranpak also contends that pylon 75 does not define inwardly- facing channels. (Reply Br. 2:15-3:4.) Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 7 Reichental’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Figure 1 shows a prospective view of mobile roll supply cart 12 arranged adjacent frame 14 which carries rugation device 11 that fabricates material for use as dunnage. (Reichental 3:61-4:16.) Reichental discloses that mobile roll supply cart 12 includes a bottom frame 70 with pivotable wheels 71 and handle 74 located on one side of the frame. (Id. at 9:51-61.) Reichental also provides that (id. at 9:61-65): A support pylon 75 extends upwardly from one end of the frame 70. In a preferred embodiment, the pylon 75 extends upwardly from the end of the frame 70 which is nearest the pivotable wheels 71 and handle 74. Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 8 Thus, Reichental discloses that frame 70 has only a single pylon 75 which resides on one end of the frame. However, in rejecting Ranpak’s claims, the Examiner found that Reichental discloses “two different pylons 75 facing each other.” (Ans. 3:6-7.) The Examiner does not point to any portion of Reichental which supports that finding. The determination is unsupported. In rejecting Ranpak’s claims, the Examiner also found that Reichental discloses a channel between the “two pylon members 75” that receives stock material R. (Ans. 6:7-8.) However, even assuming that such a “channel” is disclosed, Ranpak’s claim 1 does not require merely a channel. Rather, the claim requires that “the upright channel members both define inwardly- facing channels for receiving a stack of fan-folded sheet stock material.” The channel members must define multiple channels that are inwardly- facing and which operate to receive fan-folded sheet stock material. Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 9 Ranpak’s Figure 3 is reproduced below: Figure 3 is illustrative of inwardly facing channels defined by the channel members. As shown in Figure 3, each channel member 22 defines a channel bounded by inner side wall 30, inwardly extending front wall 34, and spring biased catches 52. (Spec. 17:7-18:13.) The Examiner does not explain how, in Reichental, pylon 75 defines multiple inwardly-facing channels as is required by claim 1. Claims 2-7 each include all the features of claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7 as anticipated by Reichental. Appeal 2009-002917 Application 11/557,446 10 F. CONCLUSION Ranpak has shown that the Examiner was incorrect in finding that Reichental discloses a pair of transversely-spaced upright channel members that both define inwardly-facing channels as required in claim 1. G. ORDER The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Reichental is reversed. REVERSED rvb RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE NINETEENTH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115