Ex Parte Seyffert

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 13, 2012

11051274 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ULRICH SEYFFERT
____________

Appeal 2010-005649
Application 11/051,274
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005649
Application 11/051,274

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
2-4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herbert
(US 6,892,635 B2; iss. May 17, 2005). App. Br. 1-2. Claims 1 and 5-7 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 8 is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal:
8. A folding apparatus for folding a web of a
maximum web width of that divided into two partial web
streams of equal width comprising:
a first individual main former which having a width
which is dimensioned such that webs up to the maximum web
width can be received on said main former; and
a second individual smaller former having a width which
is smaller than the width of said main former and which is
dimensioned such that webs up to only one-half of the
maximum web width can be received on said smaller former;
said main former having a single main former nose and
said smaller former having a single former nose, said main and
smaller formers being arranged such that the smaller former is
arranged above the main former and with respect to its width
asymmetrically to the width of the main former so that the nose
of said smaller former is located within lateral boundaries of
said main former, said main former nose and the smaller former
nose lying substantially in a common perpendicular plane when
viewed from a side of the folding apparatus whereby a partial
web stream emerging from the main former and a partial web
stream emerging from the smaller former can undergo further
processing in substantial congruent relation to each other after
folding.

Appeal 2010-005649
Application 11/051,274

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Herbert teaches a folding apparatus that
comprises a main former 107 for receiving a maximum web width and a
smaller former 102 capable of receiving a web approximately half the web
width of the main former 107 and located above the main former 107 (fig.
17) where the webs are congruent (fig. 18). Ans. 3. The Examiner further
found that the apparatus is capable of handling webs of different widths and
altering the dimensions of the web formers. Ans. 3 (citing Hebert, col. 20,
lines 51 et seq.). The Examiner also found that if the first former (leftmost)
of the bottom row in Figure 17 is modified to a larger dimensioned width
than the smaller former above it, then the smaller former would necessarily
be positioned with its nose in an asymmetrical relationship with the main
(modified, larger) former below it because the midpoint of the modified
main larger former would necessarily be positioned to the left as the adjacent
former (second row middle former in fig. 17) is positioned in the same
vertical plane (fig. 18) and would prevent the larger former nose from being
aligned with the smaller former nose above. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner also
determined that it would have been obvious to include a smaller former
above a larger main former, asymmetrically aligned, to accommodate a
smaller and larger web as desired and discussed by Herbert. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Herbert does not teach positioning a smaller
former nose “above” a larger former, or positioning any formers with noses
“asymmetrical” with respect to an underlying former. App. Br. 5. Appellant
also argues that while the formers in Herbert can be different sizes, there is
no teachings that a “smaller” former is located with its nose “above” and in
asymmetrical relation to the underlying former as called for in claim 8. App.
App
App

Br. 6
one g
sugg
relat
plan
Br. 5
eal 2010-0
lication 11
. Appella
roup can
estion that
ion and He
es of symm
-6.
Figure 1
Figure

05649
/051,274
nt further
be vertical
the forme
rbert expl
etry “S” i
7 of Herbe
17 shows
argues that
ly offset w
rs can be m
icitly calls
n common
rt is repro
a folding s
4
the Herbe
ith respec
ounted w
for the fo
alignmen
duced belo
tructure of
rt teaches
t to each o
ith their n
rmers to b
t as shown
w:
a web-fed
that the fo
ther, but t
oses in asy
e positione
in Figure

rotary pr
rmers of
here is no
mmetrica
d with the
17. App.
ess.
l

Appeal 2010-005649
Application 11/051,274

5
Herbert teaches a symmetrical arrangement in which two rows of
formers 101, 102, 103 and 106, 107, 108 are aligned with each other in a
common plane of symmetry “S” so that they share a common harp 09 with
harp rollers 88, 89, 90 and the webs that are fed to the formers. App. Br. 5
(citing Herbert, col. 21, ll. 15-18); see Herbert, col. 20, ll. 20-25 (formers
101/106, 102/107, and 103/108 are arranged above one another with planes
of symmetry S located in alignment with one another and partial web 03a,
03b, 03c). The Examiner has not adequately explained why providing a
larger former in Herbert would necessarily result in a smaller former being
placed in a top row above the larger former and asymmetrically aligned with
the larger former below it when Herbert aligns the upper and lower formers
symmetrically with one another and the harp 09. For example, large formers
could be provided in both the top and bottom rows (e.g., formers 103, 108)
to maintain the symmetry of alignment, or the formers 101, 102, 103 in the
top row could be smaller but still aligned with larger formers 106, 107, 108
in the bottom row to maintain the symmetry that Herbert wants to achieve.
As a result, the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to
include a smaller former above a larger former in asymmetrical alignment
lacks a rational underpinning, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims
2-4, 8, and 9.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2-4, 8, and 9 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Appeal 2010-005649
Application 11/051,274

6
hh