Ex Parte Hutter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

12804938 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/804,938 08/02/2010 Alban Hutter 5019.1022 8489
23280 7590 06/22/2017
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
TIGHE, BRENDAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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):
ddk @ ddkpatent .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBAN HUTTER and PAVEL CHRZIBEK
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,93 81
Technology Center 3600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2—20 have
been cancelled.2
WE AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Krones AG (Br. 2).
2 In the Final Office Action, claims 1, 3, 5—8, 10, and 11 were pending.
Appellants had cancelled claims 2, 4—6, and 9-12 as indicated in the
Response After Final Action (filed Apr. 9, 2015). Appellants further
cancelled claims 3, 7, and 8 in the Response After Final Action (filed July 9,
2015). Both responses were entered by the Examiner (Adv. Act. (mailed
Apr. 22, 2015); Adv. Act. (mailed Aug. 17, 2015)).
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,938
Claim 1. A handling device for moving goods comprising:
a frame including a first rail and a second rail;
a first drive unit held on the first rail;
a second drive unit held on the second rail;
a single first flexible, ribbon-shaped element associated
with the first drive unit;
a single second flexible, ribbon-shaped element associated
with the second drive unit;
at least one tool holder, held between the first drive unit
and the second drive unit, movable together by the first drive unit
and second drive unit in two directions at an angle with respect
to each other by at least two stationary axles of the first and
second drive unit in conjunction with the single first flexible,
ribbon-shaped element and the single second flexible ribbon­
shaped element, the at least two stationary axles including at least
one first stationary axle at a first end of the handling device and
at least one second stationary axle on a second end of the
handling device opposite the first end[;]
a first motor arranged on and generating rotational
movement of the at least one first stationary axle and at least one
second motor arranged on and generating rotational movement
of the at least one second stationary axle;
a controller regulating at least one of a rotational speed and
direction of the first motor and the at least one second motor such
that the at least one tool holder is positionable to a desired
position inside the handling device, the first motor and the at least
one second motor moving the tool holder, the first drive unit and
the second drive unit back and forth together between the at least
one first stationary axle and the at least one second stationary
axle; and
a third motor arranged in such a way that a first stationary
axle of the stationary axles of first drive unit and a further
stationary axle of the second drive unit are connected to each
other by a shared first shaft, and the shared first shaft drivable by
the first motor, the second and third motors acting on a second
2
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,938
stationary axle of the stationary axles of the first drive unit and a
second further stationary axel of the second drive unit, so that the
first drive unit can be driven by the second motor and the second
drive unit can be driven by the third motor,
wherein the controller regulates a motor pair defined by
the second motor and the third motor so that the second motor
and the third motor can be synchronized using the controller in
such a way that the at least one tool holder can be moved in the
two directions that are at an angle with respect to each other,
wherein the first and second rails are articulated on the
frame [,]
wherein the at least one tool holder includes at least two
tool holders, each of the two tool holders having two drive units
associated therewith, [and]
wherein the controller synchronizes the second motor and
the third motor with each other in such a way that the first drive
unit and the second drive unit always run synchronously.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kleineisel US 6,024,530 Feb. 15,2000
Dujardin US 8,042,425 B2 Oct. 25,2011
Arndt DE 10017293 (Al) Nov. 8, 2011
REJECTION
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kleineisel, Arndt, and Dujardin (Final Act. 2—8).
3
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,938
35 U.S.C.§ 103(a): Claim 1
Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claim 1, is patentable
over Kleineisel, Arndt, and Dujardin (Br. 5—8). The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Has the Examiner shown the combination of Kleineisel, Arndt, and
Dujardin teaches or suggests
a controller regulating at least one of a rotational speed and
direction of the first motor and the at least one second motor such
that the at least one tool holder is positionable to a desired
position inside the handling device, the first motor and the at least
one second motor moving the tool holder, the first drive unit and
the second drive unit back and forth together between the at least
one first stationary axle and the at least one second stationary
axle; and
a third motor arranged in such a way that a first stationary
axle of the stationary axles of first drive unit and a further
stationary axle of the second drive unit are connected to each
other by a shared first shaft, and the shared first shaft drivable by
the first motor, the second and third motors acting on a second
stationary axle of the stationary axles of the first drive unit and a
second further stationary axel of the second drive unit, so that the
first drive unit can be driven by the second motor and the second
drive unit can be driven by the third motor,
wherein the controller synchronizes the second motor and
the third motor with each other in such a way that the first drive
unit and the second drive unit always run synchronously,
as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that in Kleineisel, each motorized drive device 53,
54, “the asserted first and second motors of claim 1, not only [do] not need
to be connected to a single controller, but each clearly could be activated by
4
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,938
an individual operating the device” (Br. 7). Appellants further contend that
because
Kleineis[el] discloses synchronizing individual drives for wheels
on either side of a spacer shaft and specifically does NOT
disclose any connection or synchronization between the
individual drive devices 53, 54, one of skill in the art reading
Kleineis[el] actually would understand that these devices could
and perhaps should not be connected to a controller as claimed
(id.). Thus, according to Appellants, replacing a spacer shaft of Kleineisel
with a synchronizer would not teach “a controller regulating at least one of a
rotational speed and direction of the first motor and the at least one second
motor such that the at least one tool holder is positionable to a desired
position inside the handling device,” or “wherein the controller synchronizes
the second motor and the third motor with each other in such a way that the
first drive unit and the second drive unit always run synchronously,” as
recited in claim 1 (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We note absent a
patentee evincing a clear intent to limit the article “a,” the “indefinite article
‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-
ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Elkay
Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Abtox, Inc.
v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); North Am. Vaccine,
Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1575—76 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Here,
we are not persuaded the patentee has evinced a clear intent to limit the
article “a” to a singular interpretation; thus, Appellants’ arguments directed
to a “single” controller are not commensurate with the claim recitation.
Furthermore, the Examiner has set forth findings and reasoning and
5
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,938
Appellants have not persuaded us of their error (Ans. 7—8; Final Act. 4).
Specifically, Appellants have not persuaded us an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have failed to find it obvious in light of Kleineisel’s teaching of
electrically synchronizing drives (Kleineisel 5:40-48), to use a controller to
regulate motors as recited.
Appellants further contend the cited references fail to teach
a third motor arranged in such a way that a first stationary
axle of the stationary axles of first drive unit and a further
stationary axle of the second drive unit are connected to each
other by a shared first shaft, and the shared first shaft drivable by
the first motor, the second and third motors acting on a second
stationary axle of the stationary axles of the first drive unit and a
second further stationary axel of the second drive unit, so that the
first drive unit can be driven by the second motor and the second
drive unit can be driven by the third motor,
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). According to Appellants, the
Examiner finds Kleineisel’s motor 53, motor 54, and either of motor 55 or
56 teach the claimed first motor, second motor, and third motor, respectively
(Br. 7—8). Appellants argue, however, that Kleineisel does not teach a first
motor drives first axles of a first and second drive unit, a second motor
drives a second axle of the first drive unit, and a third motor drives a second
axle of the second drive unit (id. at 8). Rather, Appellants contend,
Kleineisel teaches an embodiment where a drive is assigned to each wheel
(id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner
determines an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to
provide separate motors to drive each stationary axle of one of the stationary
axle arrangements as an alternative to the shared shaft arrangement shown”
in Figure 3 of Kleineisel (Final Act. 6). Appellants have not addressed the
6
Appeal 2016-003919
Application 12/804,938
Examiner’s reasoning, for example, by explaining how or why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would not have found it obvious to provide the separate
motors, in view of the prior art of record (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416, 421 (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results” and the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton”)).” Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning are in error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Kleineisel,
Arndt, and Dujardin fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kleineisel, Arndt, and Dujardin.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kleineisel, Arndt, and Dujardin 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7