Ex Parte Scherb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11678303 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/678,303 02/23/2007 Thomas Scherb VOI0463.US 1527
7590 03/29/2013
Todd T. Taylor
Taylor & Aust, P.C.
142 S.Main Street
P.O. Box 560
Avilla, IN 46710
EXAMINER
FORTUNA, JOSE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS SCHERB, HUBERT WALKENHAUS,
and LUIZ C. SILVA
____________

Appeal 2011-010830
Application 11/678,303
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 25 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and
are set forth below:
1. A press in a machine for one of producing and processing a
material web, said press comprising:
a press belt;
Appeal 2011-010830
Application 11/678,303

2
a support belt;
a water-dispersing belt for dispersing water from the material web;
and
a roller including an outer jacket and at least one suction zone
including an end in a web running direction, the press defining a wrap zone,
said outer jacket being jointly enwrapped, at least in one said wrap zone,
respectively by at least said press belt, said support belt, and said water-
dispersing belt, said water-dispersing belt being located on an inside in
contact with said outer jacket of said roller, said press belt being located on
an outside, said support belt being between said press belt and said water-
dispersing belt, said support belt and said water-dispersing belt configured
for guiding the material web therebetween through said wrap zone, at an end
of said wrap zone said press belt being configured for being lifted off said
support belt, said support
belt being configured for being lifted off said water-dispersing belt, with the
material web, after said press belt is lifted off said support belt, said press
belt and said support belt, with the material web, being lifted off said water-
dispersing belt before said end of said suction zone in said web running
direction as said water-dispersing belt enwraps said outer jacket.

25. A method for producing a material web, said method comprising
the steps of:
forming a press nip by wrapping at least one press belt around an
outer jacket of a roller, said roller including at least one suction zone
including an end in a web running direction;
passing the material web through said press nip, the material web
being positioned between a support belt and a water-dispersing belt, said
water-dispersing belt being located on an inside in contact with said outer
jacket of said roller; and
first lifting said press belt off said support belt at an end of a wrap
zone and then lifting said support belt with the material web off said water-
dispersing belt, said press belt and said support belt, with the material web,
being lifted off said water-dispersing belt before said end of said suction
zone in said web running direction as said water-dispersing belt enwraps
said outer jacket.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2011-010830
Application 11/678,303

3
Hoff US 3,797,384 Mar. 19, 1974
Edwards US 2003/0226650 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Herman ‘068 US 2005/0167068 A1 Aug. 4, 2005
Herman ‘237 US 7,294,237 B2 Nov. 13, 2007
Scherb US 7,351,307 B2 Apr. 1, 2008

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scherb or Herman ‘237, or Herman ‘068, in view of Hoff
or Edwards.
ANALYSIS

We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer. We add the following for emphasis only.
With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that the applied art does not
suggest their claimed subject matter, and in particular, the aspect of claim 1
pertaining to:
at an end of said wrap zone said press belt being configured for being
lifted off said support belt, said support belt being configured for
being lifted off said water-dispersing belt, with the material web, after
said press belt is lifted off said support belt, said press belt and said
support belt, with the material web, being lifted off said water-
dispersing belt before said end of said suction zone in said web
running direction as said water-dispersing belt enwraps said outer
jacket.
Appeal 2011-010830
Application 11/678,303

4
With respect to claim 25, Appellants argue that the applied art does
not suggest their claimed subject matter, and in particular, the aspect of
claim 25 pertaining to:
being located on an inside in contact with said outer jacket of said
roller; and first lifting said press belt off said support belt at an end of
a wrap zone and then lifting said support belt with the material web
off said water-dispersing belt, said press belt and said support belt,
with the material web, being lifted off said water-dispersing belt
before said end of said suction zone in said web running direction as
said water-dispersing belt enwraps said outer jacket.
Br. 13-14.
It is the Examiner’s position that while the applied references do not
explicitly disclose the particular position at which point the belts are lifted
from the roll or the angle of liftoff (Ans. 3-5), Hoff and Edwards teach that
such variables are result effective ones, for the reasons expressed on pages
4-5 of the Answer.
Appellants argue that the teachings in these references are too general,
and do not address the specific order of lift-off as recited in the claims. Br.
paragraph bridging pages 14-15, and 17.
However, we are not convinced by such argument. Firstly, the
specific order of lift-off involves a point of lift-off, and therefore, because
either Hoff or Edwards teaches a point of lift-off as being a result effective
variable, we are in agreement with the Examiner that such is deemed an
obvious design choice well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the
art, absent evidence to the contrary or evidence of unexpected results (which
have not presented in this case). Optimization of a variable recognized in
the prior art to be a result effective variable is the type of routine step
Appeal 2011-010830
Application 11/678,303

5
ordinarily within the skill in the art and, therefore, supportive of a
conclusion of obviousness. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980);
see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Secondly, selection of any order of known performing process steps,
such as the known lifting steps recited in claims 1and 25, is prima facie
obvious due to a reasonable expectation of obtaining the same outcome, in
the absence of new or unexpected results. See In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690
(CCPA 1946).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
The rejection 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)(1).
AFFIRMED

sld