Ex Parte Putzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13321616 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/321,616 11/21/2011 Frank Putzer 40047-099US1 2963
69713 7590 09/28/2017
OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP
321 Summer St.
Boston, MA 02210
EXAMINER
RIVERA, JOSHEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
INFO @ORP ATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK PUTZER and HOLGER STENNER
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, AVELYN M. ROSS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 45—67. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 We cite to the Substitute Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 8, 2014;
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated April 23, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) dated September 25, 2015; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
dated March 11, 2016; and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated May
11,2016.
2 Appellants identify KHS GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to “an apparatus and method for
detecting an actual position of a label-transfer element of a labeling machine
relative to a peripheral surface of a container to be labeled.” Spec. 1.
Claims 45 and 64—the only independent claims on appeal—are reproduced
from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
45. An apparatus comprising a bottle-labeling machine for
applying a label to a peripheral surface of a container that is
arranged for movement in a transport plane and about an axis of
rotation, wherein said bottle labeling machine comprises a
labeling machine, wherein said labeling machine comprises a
label-transfer element, a sensor system, a first position-
detection element, and a control-and-evaluation unit, wherein
said sensor system comprises a first sensor unit, wherein said
first sensor unit is directed toward said label-transfer element,
wherein said first sensor unit is directed toward said first
position-detection element, wherein said first position-detection
element is detectable by said sensor unit, wherein said first
position-detection element is disposed on said label-transfer
element, wherein said control-and-evaluation unit is operatively
connected to said first sensor unit, and wherein said control-
and-evaluation unit is configured to detect, based on a detected
position of said first position-detection element, an actual
position of said label-transfer element relative to said peripheral
surface ofjsaid container in a three-dimensional detection
space.
64. A method comprising detecting an actual position of a
label-transfer element of a labeling machine relative to a
peripheral surface of a container to be labeled, wherein
detecting said actual position comprises causing movement of
said container in a transport plane and about an axis of rotation
past a sensor system comprising a first sensor unit directed
toward said label-transfer element and a first position-detection
element that is detectable by said first sensor unit and that is
disposed on said label-transfer element, and causing a control-
2
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
and-evaluation unit that is operatively connected to said first
sensor unit to detect, based on a detected position of said first
position-detection element, an actual position of said label-
transfer element in a three-dimensional detection space.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
I. Claims 45—52 and 56—67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thatenhorst4 and Cho.5
II. Claims 53—55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Thatenhorst, Cho, and Giacomazzi.6
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant argues the rejected claims as a
group, with additional separate arguments presented in connection with
claims 46, 48—52, 56, 58, 59, 61—63 and 65—67. App. Br. 3—28. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 45 as
representative of the group. Claims not separately argued will stand or fall
with claim 45. The above-listed separately argued claims are separately
addressed.
Claim 45
The Examiner finds that Thatenhorst discloses a labeling apparatus
that includes a labeling unit and a label positioning control system
3 Final Act. 2—9; Ans. 2—9.
4 US 2009/0173450 Al, published July 9, 2009 (“Thatenhorst”).
5 US 6,459,092 B2, issued October 1, 2002 (“Cho”).
6 US 2006/0113020 Al, published June 1, 2006 (“Giacomazzi”).
3
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
configured to move the labeling unit in six degrees-of-freedom motion to
position the labeling unit relative to a container surface to be labeled. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Thatenhorst states that Cho
discloses a sensor system that can be used to measure six degrees-of-
freedom motion. Id. at 3, 11. The Examiner finds Thatenhorst thereby
provides an express reason to incorporate the pertinent teachings of Cho to
monitor the six degrees-of freedom motion of the labeling unit. Id. at 9—11.
Appellants argue that Cho discloses a motion sensor, not a position
sensor. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1—6. We disagree. Cho expressly refers to
the disclosed sensing system as including “position-sensitive detectors
(PSDs),” the outputs of which are used to identify displacement of a 3-facet
reflector associated with an object of interest, where the displacement is
expressed as x-, y-, and z- coordinates in space, along with rolling, pitching,
and yawing angles. E.g. Cho 6:18—27. Cho further teaches use of the
disclosed sensing apparatus “[t]o measure the position and orientation of the
3-facet reflector 110 using the outputs from the three PSDs.” Id. 6:49—53
(emphasis added). Appellants acknowledge Cho’s teaching of position
detection elsewhere in their Brief. App. Br. 3^4 (“Cho discloses an
apparatus to detect the position of a slider 220 inside a disk drive [of] a
computer. ... By using suitable software, it is possible to use these positions
to work backwards and evaluate the movement of the slider.”).
Appellants contend that Thatenhorst’s express reference to Cho in
paragraph 72 is nullified by Thatenhorst’s general qualifying remark made
in paragraph 92 that some prior art examples “may possibly not be used or
useable” in embodiments disclosed in Thatenhorst. App. Br. 5—9. However,
Appellants fail to present persuasive evidence or reasoning against the
4
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to
Cho’s six degree-of-ffeedom position sensor in connection with
Thatenhorst’s disclosed six degree-of-freedom movement for the labeling
unit. Nor do Appellants explain why Cho’s position-sensing system would
not have been useable in Thatenhorst’s apparatus. We are not persuaded that
Thatenhorst’s general characterization of some, unspecified prior art
examples as possibly not useable, alone, is sufficient to negate Thatenhorst’s
express reference to Cho’s disclosure of a six degree-of-freedom motion
sensor.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill alternatively could apply
Cho’s sensor system to Thatenhorst by monitoring stationary objects relative
to the moving labeling unit, rather than directing the sensor system to
monitor movement of the labeling unit itself. App. Br. 9—10. This
argument is not persuasive. Cho’s disclosed sensor system operates by
monitoring a multi-directional reflector attached to the object to be moved
and detected. E.g., Cho 3:12—17. In Thatenhorst, the labeling unit is the
object to be moved and adjusted. See Thatenhorst 110 (“The present
application teaches that this object can be accomplished by mounting at least
the label transfer device by means of a transmission so that it can be moved
and adjusted multi-dimensionally in the transfer space.”). The possibility of
sensing arrangements other than what is disclosed in Cho is not persuasive
of error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Appellants present various arguments regarding whether one skilled in
the art would have had a reason to replace Thatenhorst’s sensor 16 with
Cho’s position-sensing system. App. Br. 10—14. We do not read the
Rejection as involving replacement of Thatenhorst’s sensor 16. Rather, the
5
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
Rejection involves applying Clio’s teachings to permit monitoring of the six
degree-of-freedom motion imparted to the labeling unit. Thatenhorst’s
sensor 16 is described as an imaging device disposed to evaluate the position
of a label after it has been applied to a bottle. Thatenhorst 137. Improper
label positioning determined by sensor 16 serves as a basis for corrective
adjustment of the labeling unit. Id. Thus, the sensor system proposed to be
added in Thatenhorst, to monitor the six degree-of-freedom adjustment of
the labeling unit, would augment Thatenhorst’s sensor 16, not replace it.
Appellants also contend that the recited phrase, “position-detection
element,” precludes Cho’s reflecting element. App. Br. 15—18 (citing Spec,
at 12,11. 8—26). We disagree. Appellants state in the Specification that
position-detection elements include, for example, “a pyramid-shaped body,
the body edges of which can be detected in a contactless manner.” Spec, at
13, lines 1—5. Appellants do not dispute that Cho’s reflecting element is a
pyramid-shaped body, the edges of which are detected in a contactless
manner. Appellants fail to point to persuasive evidence in the Specification
or elsewhere that would exclude Cho’s reflecting element as a position-
detection element.
Appellants also contend that there is no teaching in Thatenhorst or
Cho of detecting the position of the labeling unit relative to a container.
App. Br. 18—20. However, as noted, Thatenhorst discloses adjusting the
labeling unit by six degrees-of-freedom motion in response to, and to correct
for, a detected misalignment of a label after it is applied to a bottle.
Thatenhorst 137. Thus, the position-detection and adjustment of
Thatenhorst’s labeling unit would have been made relative to the bottle
position, to achieve Thatenhorst’s objective of correcting misalignment of
6
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
labels applied to bottles. See id. 140 (“The movement commands are
preferably input in the form of object coordinates with reference to the
container.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 45. We, therefore, sustain
Rejection I as applied to that claim. Rejection I as applied to claims 47, 57,
60, and 64, which are not separately argued, is sustained for the same
reasons.
Claims 46, 48, 49, 56, 61—63 and 67
Appellants argue that the Final Action does not address the position-
detection element being directly connected to the label-transfer element, as
recited in claim 46. App. Br. 20—21. However, Thatenhorst discloses label
adjustment by moving the label-transfer unit and Cho discloses detecting
positional movement by monitoring a reflective element directly attached to
the moving body. Thatenhorst 137; Cho 3:27-40. In light of the
combination of the foregoing disclosures articulated in the Final Action, we
are not persuaded that the argued feature in claim 46 is not addressed.
With regard to claim 48, Appellants argue that the term “pattern” in
that claim does not encompass information. App. Br. 21—22. However,
Appellants fail to point to evidence of record sufficient to warrant such a
narrow interpretation of the term, “pattern.” Nor do Appellants persuade us
that information relating to spatial locations of a reflected laser beam on
each of the three sensors would not constitute a “pattern.”
Appellants’ argument, id. at 22, that the art relied upon does not detect
inclination of the label transfer element recited in claim 49, is incorrect.
Both Thatenhorst and Cho refer to six degrees-of-motion, which would
7
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
include inclination. See Thatenhorst | 50 (“tipping in a left and right
plane”); Cho 6:25—26 (“rolling, pitching, and yawing”).
Appellants’ argument in support of claim 56 that Thatenhorst fails to
teach containers arranged for rotation about their longitudinal axes, App. Br.
23—24, is severely undercut, if not contradicted, by Thatenhorst 134
(“Because the distance between the bottle plates 12 is less than the distance
between the gripper cylinders 7, an additional rotation of the bottle 13 is
necessary during the labeling process.”).
Regarding claims 61 and 62, Appellants’ argument, App. Br. 26—27,
does not persuade us that the combined disclosures of Thatenhorst and Cho
do not support the Examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious to provide a display unit for the purpose of displaying position and
adjustment of the labeling unit.
Nor do Appellants persuade us that the Examiner fails to address the
recitation in claim 63, which requires that the position-detection element is
disposed at an invariable distance from a label-transfer point. Id. at 27. The
Examiner finds that one skilled in the art would have had a reason to attach
Cho’s reflective element to Thatenhorst’s labeling unit, which would have
resulted in a fixed distance between the reflective element and the label-
transfer point of the labeling unit to which it is attached.
Claim 67, by its dependence from claim 45, requires a sensor unit that
(1) is directed toward the position-detecting element disposed on the label-
transfer device and (2) comprises a camera system. Appellants argue that
the Examiner improperly relies on Thatenhorst’s sensor 16 as the recited
“camera system” because sensor 16 is not directed toward the position­
detecting element. Id. at 28. However, we do not read claim 67 as requiring
8
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
the camera itself to be directed toward the position-detecting element, so
long as the sensing unit of which the camera is a component is so-directed.
Here, the Examiner views the recited sensing unit as being met collectively
by Cho’s sensor system—which in the combination is directed toward
Thatenhorst’s adjustable labeling-unit—and Thatenhorst’s camera 16.
Appellants’ argument that the camera 16 itself is not directed toward the
position-detecting element, therefore, is not persuasive of error.
Claims 50—52, 58, 59, 65, and 66
Regarding each of claims 50-52, 58, 59, 65, and 66, we agree with
Appellants’ contentions at pages 22—24 and 27—28 that the Examiner fails to
adequately explain where the features recited in these claims are found in the
prior art relied upon. Claim 50 requires an “electronic ruler.” We do not
find a discussion of this element in the Final Action or Answer. Claim 51
recites “an end position/zero position sensor that is configured to be
triggered by movement of said label-transfer element. . . past a trigger
point.” The Examiner finds that Cho’s sensor system identifies x, y, and z
coordinates and, for that reason, constitutes an end position/zero position
sensor. Final Act. 4—5. That reasoning, however, fails to address the
recitation that the end position/zero position sensor is configured to be
triggered by movement past a trigger point. Claim 52 calls for a laser
pointer that is “fixedly connected to said labeling machine.” Appellants
persuasively argue that Cho expressly teaches that the laser component of
the disclosed sensor system is movable. App. Br. 23 (citing Cho 6:33—34)
(“Thus, the laser beam and the 3-facet reflector 110 must move together.”).
Claims 58 and 59 specify that the position-detection element has a reference
patterned surface (claim 58) and is colored (claim 59). Appellants
9
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
persuasively argue that the Examiner has not presented evidence or technical
reasoning to meet these recitations. Id. at 24—25. Regarding claims 65 and
66, the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to add a second
position-detection element as a “duplication of parts,” Final Act. 7—8, is not
supported by evidence or technical reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill
would have duplicated Cho’s reflective element. For the foregoing
reasons, we also sustain Rejection I as applied to claims 46, 48, 49, 56, 57,
61—63, and 67. We do not sustain Rejection I as applied to claims 50—52,
58, 59, 65 and 66 for the reasons argued in the Appeal Brief.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellants argue that the particular label-
applying techniques respectively recited in claims 53—55, are not shown in
Thatenhorst or Cho. App. Br. 28—33. Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that each of the recited techniques was known, as
evidenced by Giacomazzi. Nor do Appellants present evidence or technical
reasoning to refute the Examiner’s articulated rationale that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Thatenhorst’s
labeling apparatus to operate with any of the known label types—namely,
hot glue, cold glue, or self-adhesive labels. On this record, Appellants do
not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 53—55. We
sustain Rejection II for the reasons set forth in the Final Action.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 45 49, 53—57, 60-64, and
67 is affirmed.
10
Appeal 2016-005754
Application 13/321,616
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 50—52, 58, 59, 65 and 66 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11