Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11839951 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

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.
11/839,951 08/16/2007 Thomas Schmidt A-4539 9403
24131 7590 12/19/2013
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
GOKHALE, PRASAD V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2013 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 SCHMIDT and KARL-HEINZ HELMSTADTER
____________

Appeal 2012-003310
Application 11/839,951
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003310
Application 11/839,951

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Schmidt and Karl-Heinz Helmstadter (“Appellants”) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5,
7, and 11. Claims 1 and 3 are before us for review. See infra. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A sheet processing machine, comprising:
a drum;
a turner gripper system carried by said drum, said turner
gripper system having clamping grippers with a gripper pad and
a gripper finger; and
an apparatus for opening said grippers and pivoting said
turner gripper system, said apparatus actuating a pivoting
movement of said turner gripper system by a radial cam
controller independently of an opening movement of said
grippers actuated by an axial cam controller.
App. Br. 11, Claims App’x.
Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art reference:
Eichorn US 3,196,767 July 27, 1965
Rejection
Appellants seek review of the following rejection:1
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Eichorn.

1 The Examiner withdrew rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs. Ans. 4, 6.
Appeal 2012-003310
Application 11/839,951

3
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
OPINION
The Examiner found that Eichorn discloses each and every element of
claims 1 and 3. Ans. 5-6.
Appellants raise several arguments in response to the rejection.2
Br. 7-9.
The Examiner’s response persuasively addresses each argument raised
by Appellants. Ans. 7-8. We hereby adopt the Examiner’s findings as
though they were our own. Additionally, we note that Appellants’ argument
directed to mounting the gripper pad and gripper finger so as to pivot about a
common axis (Br. 8) are not recited in claim 1 and thus do not distinguish
the claim from Eichorn’s device.3
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Vsh

2 Appellants do not separately argue claims 1 and 3. See Br. 7-9. We select
claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, claim 3 stands or falls with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
3 We also note that Appellants do not raise any argument with respect to the
Examiner’s finding that Eichorn’s shaft SH2 corresponds to the claimed
radial cam controller. See Ans. 5.