Ex parte LEIFELD

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 1998

08124774 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 22, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 35
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte FERDINAND LEIFELD
________________
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,7741
________________
HEARD: MARCH 2, 1998
________________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1
through 15, 17 through 19, 21 and 22, all of the claims
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
Claims 17 and 18 have been amended subsequent to final2
rejection.
-2-
pending in the application.2
The invention relates to “an apparatus which forms part
of a carding machine and which serves for introducing fiber
material to the main carding cylinder” (specification, page
1). Independent claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. In a carding machine including a main carding
cylinder and an apparatus for introducing fiber material to
the main carding cylinder; the apparatus including a fiber
feeding device and at least one licker-in having a sawtooth
clothing and being disposed between the fiber feeding device
and the main carding cylinder; the improvement wherein said
apparatus comprises at least one pin roll having a pin
clothing; said pin roll including a securing surface; said pin
clothing including a plurality of pins embedded into and
projecting from said securing surface; said pin roll
immediately adjoining said fiber feeding device and being
situated between said fiber feeding device and said licker-in.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Plantron 166,407 Aug. 3, 1875
Riehl et al. (Riehl) 2,964,801 Dec. 20, 1960
Otani 3,995,351 Dec. 7, 1976
Estebanell 4,355,439 Oct. 26, 1982
Weber 8560 Jun. 14, 1887
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
In view of the amendment subsequent to final rejection,3
the examiner has withdrawn a 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 17 and 18 which was set forth
for the first time in the main answer (Paper No. 24). See
page 1 in the supplemental answer (Paper No. 29).
The examiner mistakenly included canceled claim 16 in4
the statement of this rejection in both the final rejection
(Paper No. 15) and main answer (Paper No. 24).
-3-
(British Patent Document)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as follows:3
a) claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 13 through 15, 19
and 22 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Otani and
Riehl;
b) claims 6, 17, 18 and 21 as being unpatentable over
Weber in view of Otani and Riehl, and further in view of
Plantron; and4
c) claim 12 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of
Otani and Riehl, and further in view of Estebanell.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 23 and 27) and to the examiner’s final
rejection, main answer and supplemental answer (Paper Nos. 15,
24 and 29) for the respective positions of the appellant and
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
The copy of claim 19 in the appendix to the appellant’s5
main brief, which shows the claim to be independent, is not
accurate.
-4-
the examiner with regard to the propriety of these rejections.
Since the appellant, stating that “[n]o independent defense is
presented in connection with claims 2-15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and
22 which all depend directly or ultimately from the sole
independent claim 1" (main brief, page 5), has not challenged5
the rejections of the dependent claims with any reasonable
specificity, all of
the dependent claims shall stand or fall with independent
claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Weber discloses a carding machine having a large or main
carding cylinder T and an apparatus for introducing fiber
material to this cylinder. The introducing apparatus includes
a fiber feeding device composed of a fluted feed cylinder C
and a spreading device F, a licker-in composed of a breaker
roll B, and an additional breaker roll A immediately adjoining
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
-5-
the fiber feeding device (fluted feed cylinder C and spreading
device F) and situated between the fiber feeding device and
the licker-in (breaker roll B). The breaker roll A rotates at
a lower velocity than the breaker roll B so as to open and
clean the fiber material in a gradually accelerating manner
which is said to improve the performance and efficiency of the
carding process (see, for example, pages 1, 2, 4 and 7).
Weber teaches that the licker-in or breaker roll B has a
covering similar to that of the main carding cylinder and that
the breaker roll A has a covering similar to that of the
revolving tops of the large or main carding cylinder (see
pages 3, 6 and 7).
The Weber carding machine meets all of the limitations in
representative claim 1 except for those requiring the licker-
in to have a sawtooth clothing and the roll between the fiber
feeding device and the licker-in to be a pin roll having a pin
clothing which includes a plurality of pins embedded into and
projecting from a securing surface. As noted above, Weber
only describes the licker-in or breaker roll B as having a
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
-6-
covering or clothing similar to that of the main carding
cylinder and the breaker roll A between the fiber feeding
device and the licker-in as having a covering or clothing
similar to that of the revolving tops of the large or main
carding cylinder.
Otani discloses a carding machine which includes a main
carding cylinder 3 and an associated revolving top in the form
of a rotary flat section 4. As conceded by the appellant,
“the Otani reference in Figure 2 shows a cooperation between
traveling flats [i.e., the rotary flat section] that have a
pin clothing and a main carding cylinder that has a sawtooth
clothing” (main brief, page 9).
Riehl discloses a carding machine wherein the main
carding cylinder 12 is a pin roll. As best shown in Figure 4,
the pins are embedded in and project from a securing surface
of the roll.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Weber’s teaching
that the licker-in or breaker roll B has a covering similar to
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
-7-
that of the main carding cylinder and that the breaker roll A
has a covering similar to that of the revolving tops of the
main carding cylinder by providing the licker-in or breaker
roll B with a sawtooth clothing and the breaker roll A with a
pin clothing in view of the teachings of Otani. The examiner
also concludes that it further would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to form the pin clothing on the
breaker roll A of a plurality of pins embedded into and
projecting from a securing surface in view of the teachings of
Riehl (see pages 3 through 5 in the final rejection).
In essence, the appellant contends that the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is unsound because the combined
teachings of the references would not have suggested (1)
making Weber’s rolls A and B a pin roll and a sawtooth roll,
respectively, and (2) providing the pin roll with a lesser
clothing point density than the sawtooth roll.
Notwithstanding the appellant’s argument to the contrary,
Weber’s teaching that the licker-in or breaker roll B has a
covering similar to that of the main carding cylinder and that
the breaker roll A has a covering similar to that of the
revolving tops of the main carding cylinder would have
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
-8-
furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to
provide the licker-in or breaker roll B with a sawtooth
clothing and the breaker roll A with a pin clothing when
combined with Otani’s teaching of a main carding cylinder
having a sawtooth clothing and revolving flats or tops having
a pin clothing. That Riehl discloses a conventional pin
clothing construction has not been disputed. The relative
clothing point density argument advanced by the appellant is
unpersuasive in light of the lack of any express mention of
this feature in the claims, or even in the underlying
disclosure, and the lack of any evidence in the record
supporting the appellant’s assertion that this feature
inherently is recited in the claims.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the
subject matter recited in representative claim 1 and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of this claim
and of dependent claims 2 through 15, 17 through 19, 21 and 22
which stand or fall therewith.
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
-9-
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1260
Application 08/124,774
-10-
Spencer, Frank & Schneider
Suite 300 East
1100 New York Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3955