13669904 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

Ex Parte HOEPNER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 2018

13669904 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/669,904 11/06/2012 Bernd HOEPNER 72372 7590 07/03/2018 SCHOPPE, ZIMMERMANN , STOCKELER & ZINKLER C/O KEA TING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive SUITE 200 Reston, VA 20191 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. 50501.441 8150 EXAMINER RUSHING-TUCKER, CHINYERE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07 /03/2018 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): USPTO@KBIPLA W.COM jkeating@kbiplaw.com ADeschere@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BERND HOEPNER, THOMAS HUBER, JOSEPH BATZER, HELMUT FOERG, and REINHARD SEILER Appeal2017-009465 Application 13/669,904 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-18. App. Br. 1. Claims 6, 10, and 19-24 have been canceled. App. Br. 15-17 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify BOEWE SYSTEC GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-009465 Application 13/669,904 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relate[ s] to the field of inserting goods into covers, more specifically to a separating device in an apparatus for inserting one or more goods into a moveable cover, for example an envelope." Spec. i-f 2. Apparatus claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An apparatus for inserting one or more goods into a movmg cover, compnsmg: a cover feeder; a cover transport configured to receive the cover from the cover feeder and to move the cover along a filling path, along which the one or more goods are inserted into the cover; and at least one separating device configured to open the cover so that a first part and a second part of the cover are separated from each other, and engage with the first part of the cover and maintain the first part of the cover separate from the second part of the cover during at least a part of the movement of the cover; wherein the cover is moved by the cover transport independent of the separating device; and the cover transport moves the cover along the filling path at least until the one or more goods are completely inside the cover. Orsinger Hagemann REFERENCES us 3,423,900 US 2009/0313950 Al 2 Jan 28, 1969 Dec. 24, 2009 Appeal2017-009465 Application 13/669,904 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 2 Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Orsinger. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Orsinger and Hagemann. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16--18 as anticipated by Orsinger Both independent claims 1 and 1 7 include the limitation, "the cover transport moves the cover along the filling path at least until the one or more goods are completely inside the cover." Emphasis added. The Examiner provides an annotation of Figure 1 of Orsinger (Final Act. 3), see below. (\:,:'!;!~:;- ff~r~~~Â·NÂ·J, . ~~Â·Â·~t~Â¥Â·:~~Â· ~~~~:?i~l:' ~~~Â·~~ Â· fiW:n~p&th The above Examiner's annotation depicts envelope (E) rotary feed drum 13; insert (C, D) magazines 10, 11; insert conveyor 41; inserting assembly 15; supporting and assembly conveyor 14; and, take-away conveyor 1 7. 2 The prior art rejections involving the reference to Rivenbark (US 2002/0112453 Al, dated August 22, 2002) have been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2017-009465 Application 13/669,904 Orsinger states, "[a]s the inserts [C, DJ are transported along the insert track," "envelopes E are transported by the drum 13 [] to the point of interception and filling therewith of the on-moving inserts." Orsinger 4:41- 44. Orsinger continues, "[a]s each of the envelopes E reaches the insert interception and filling zone, it is taken from the envelope drum 13 by the envelope pick-off supporting and conveying assembly 14." Orsinger 5:69- 72 (emphasis added). Orsinger further states that upon the envelope being removed from drum 13, it is then "moved, without interruption, onward in the path of and with the insert or inserts assembled therewith." Orsinger 5:72-74. Orsinger also teaches that the forward speed of assembly 15 is accelerated "so as to overtake" the inserts moving along conveyor 41 thereby causing the inserts to "enter the receptacle envelope [E] substantially coincident with[] release of the envelope flap F" by drum 13, or just before such release. Orsinger 7:13-19 (emphasis added). The increased speed of assembly 15 moves the inserts fully into the envelope (now held by supporting and assembly conveyor 14). 3 Orsinger 7:33-36. In fact, assembly 15 "has the dual function of then stripping the filled envelopes from the assembly 14 and discharging them to a stacker or take- away conveyor 17." Orsinger 2:30-34; see also id. at 7:37--40. Hence, as taught by Orsinger, drum 13 supplies the envelopes to a zone where both the envelope and the inserts are aligned. See Orsinger Fig. 1. The inserts then "enter" the envelope "coincident with" or just before 3 Inserts are advanced "to an envelope feed device 13 which presents successive envelopes synchronized with delivery of the inserts to an envelope filling zone where the envelopes are taken from the feed device by" conveyor 14. Orsinger 2:25-30. The inserts are "[i]nserted into the envelopes by an inserting assembly 15." Orsinger 2:30-31. 4 Appeal2017-009465 Application 13/669,904 the envelope is released from drum 13. Orsinger 7: 13-19. After envelope release by drum 13, and while the envelope/inserts are driven by assemblies 14115, the faster-moving assembly 15 completes the movement of the inserts "into the aligned envelope" "along the balance of the insert track." Orsinger 7:33-36; see also id. at Fig. 1. Additionally, "[a]s the filled envelope approaches the forward end of the assembly 14, stripping from [assembly 14] is completed and the envelope is ejected onto the stacker or take-away conveyor 17" by the faster-moving assembly 15. Orsinger 7:56-60; see also id. at 7:37--40. In the present rejection, the Examiner repeatedly correlates the recited "cover transport" to Orsinger's drum 13. Final Act. 2, 3; Ans. 9 ("Examiner maintains that drum 13 meets the limitations of a cover transport, as claimed."). Appellants, on the other hand, repeatedly contend that Orsinger' s drum 13 does not satisfy the limitation of the cover transport moving the cover/envelope "along the filling path at least until the one or more goods [i.e., inserts] are completely inside the cover." See App. Br. 6- 8; Reply Br. 3-6. In the above annotated figure, the Examiner identifies where the movement of Orsinger's inserts and envelope coincide such that the inserts "enter" the envelope (while the envelope may still be gripped by drum 13). Ans. 9 (referencing Orsinger 7: 13-20). Thereupon, the Examiner states, "[t]his implies that the goods are inserted fully into the envelope ... even if for only a moment." Ans. 9 (stating "Orsinger punctuates this teaching in Claims 4, and 7 which recite the limitations"). Appellants disagree arguing a difference between the start or beginning of insertion and the end or completion of such insertion. Reply Br. 3--4. 5 Appeal2017-009465 Application 13/669,904 Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Not only does the above description of Orsinger disclose that completion of the insertion step occurs after the envelope is released from drum 13, but the Examiner fails to indicate how a disclosure of a beginning of a process "implies" the completion of that process at that same location and at that same time (so as to achieve completion "if only for a moment"). Further, an investigation of claims 4 and 7 of Orsinger simply reveal recitations to envelope filling, there is no disclose in either claim regarding drum 13 moving the envelope at least through the completion of the filling stage as the Examiner would have us believe, and as Appellants' claims recite. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Orsinger anticipates either independent claim 1 or claim 17. Furthermore, the Examiner's additional reliance on Hagemann in support of the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 15, does not cure this defect in Orsinger. See App. Br. 12. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-18. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-18 are reversed. REVERSED 6