11155933 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

Ex Parte Shmaiser et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 14, 2012

11155933 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ARON SHMAISER and AYAL GALILI ____________ Appeal 2010-002196 Application 11/155,933 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-002196 Application 11/155,933 2 REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rudolph (US 4,343,241, issued Aug. 10, 1982). Claims 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rudolph and Van Den Honert (US 3,663,012, issued May 16, 1972).1 Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rudolph and Landa (US 6,438,352 B1, issued Aug. 20, 2002). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to rotating vacuum fingers for removal or peeling off of print media, typically paper, from an impression drum.” Spec. 1:10, 11. Claims 1, 11, 18, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 11 are apparatus claims and claims 18 and 22 are process (method) claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and with emphasis added, recites: 1. A printing and peeling arrangement comprising: an impression drum for supporting a print medium for receipt of a printing image, a rotating shaft, and at least one rotating vacuum finger extending from said shaft along a radial axis of said shaft for applying vacuum to said print medium to remove said print medium from said impression drum after receipt of said printing image, 1 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rudolph and Van Den Honert is a new ground of rejection. Ans. 2-3. Appeal 2010-002196 Application 11/155,933 3 wherein a radial component of motion along said radial axis towards said impression drum is applied to said vacuum finger. OPINION Rudolph discloses a sheet-fed rotary press including a sheet guiding cylinder. Col. 3, ll. 3, 4, fig. 1. Figure 1 depicts an impression cylinder 5 cooperating with a sheet guiding member 6, with the sheet guiding member 6 having a suction gripper system 8. Col. 3, ll. 17-23. The Examiner finds that Rudolph’s disclosure of components of the suction gripper system 8, particularly the suction gripper unit 13 and 14, correspond to the vacuum finger as recited in claims 1 and 11, and the method steps associated with the vacuum finger as recited in claims 18, and 22. See Ans. 3-4, 5-6. The Appellants point out that Rudolph describes that: During the rotation of the sheet guiding cylinder 6[,] the suction system 8 is controlled by a non- illustrated rocking drive performing a periodic rocking movement. In addition to this rocking movement, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the cam drive 16, 17 and 18 imparts to the suction gripper unit 13 and 14 a tilting movement corresponding to the shape of the cam disc 16. App. Br. 8, quoting Rudolph, col. 4, ll. 13-19. The Appellants contend that Rudolph does not disclose “a vacuum finger extending from or mounted radially about the shaft along a radial axis of the shaft” as called for by claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 6. In other words, the motion of suction gripper unit 13, 14 is not along a radial axis of the shaft. See Id. The Examiner apparently finds the vertical component of the diagonal velocity of Rudolph’s suction head 14 is along the radial axis. See Ans. 5-6. However, since there is a horizontal Appeal 2010-002196 Application 11/155,933 4 component to the diagonal velocity of suction head 14, the total radial component of motion is not along the radial axis. The Examiner also suggests that the velocity of Rudolph’s suction head 14 is similar to the Appellants’ Figure 3 because two links connected to the vacuum finger “apply a similar pivoting movement as Rudolph, as the vacuum finger is moved towards and away from the shaft[, and a]s vacuum finger 40 is moved out of the drum the links will cause the vacuum finger to also rotate to the right.” Ans. 6. However, we agree with Appellants that this comparison is speculative and lacks adequate support. See Reply Br. 5. The Appellants also contend that Rudolph does not disclose: “the radial motion component provides a linear approach to the impression drum” (App. Br. 7), as called for by claim 11; and “applying a linear component to the rotary motion so as to cause the vacuum finger to extend linearly outwards along the radial axis of the shaft upon approaching the drum to contact the print medium and retract linearly along the radial axis of the shaft upon receding from the drum” (App. Br. 7), as called for by claims 18 and 22. The Examiner finds that Rudolph discloses “a rotating vacuum finger . . . with a suction head . . . that applies a linear component of motion.” Ans. 3. The Examiner determines that “linear means continuous” and Rudolph discloses a continuous arc movement via a tilting movement of arm 13 and suction head 14, whereby arm 13 and suction head 14 are pivotable about journal 12. Ans. 5. However, we find that this determination lacks adequate support. We agree with the Appellants that “the linear approach and/or linear extension or linear retraction of Appellant[s’] vacuum finger is [the] ‘radial Appeal 2010-002196 Application 11/155,933 5 motion’ of the vacuum finger along the radial axis of the shaft as illustrated, for example, in Fig. 3.” Reply Br. 5. More specifically, Appellants’ Figure 3 depicts a double arrow, (i.e., the line with arrow heads at terminal ends), above vacuum finger(s) 40, and identifies the double arrow as “radial motion”. Furthermore, an ordinary and customary meaning of the term “linear” is “of, relating to, resembling, or having a graph that is a line and esp. a straight line : STRAIGHT.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th Ed. 1997). As such, read in light of the Specification, it is unreasonable to interpret the term “linear” to mean “continuous,” as the Examiner proposes. Hence, the Examiner’s determination that “linear means continuous” (Ans. 5), and further findings depending on that determination (Ans. 5-7), are not adequately supported. See Reply Br. 5-6. Thus, the Examiner’s findings that Rudolph’s motion of suction gripper unit 13 and 14 is along the radial axis (as called for by claims 1 and 11), is a linear approach to Rudolph’s impression cylinder 5 (as called for by claim 11), and causes the suction head 14 to extend outwardly and retract linearly along said radial axis of said shaft upon approaching or receding from Rudolph’s impression cylinder 5 (as called for by claims 18 and 22) are not adequately supported. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-20, and 22 as anticipated by Rudolph is not sustained. The remaining rejections based on Rudolph in combination with Van Den Honert or Landa rely on the same inadequately supported findings as discussed above. Ans. 4-5. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 7, 8, and 14 as unpatentable over Rudolph and Van Den Honert, and claim 21 as unpatentable Rudolph and Landa are not sustained. Appeal 2010-002196 Application 11/155,933 6 DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-22. REVERSED Klh