11639588 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

Ex Parte Sussmeier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 10, 2012

11639588 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOHN W. SUSSMEIER, ARTHUR H. DEPOL, and GERALD F. LEITZ ____________ Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE L. BARRY, and ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 11. The Examiner indicated that claims 3-5 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Office Action 3). Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION This invention relates to fine tuning the operation of a high speed guillotine cutter at the input portion of a high speed inserter system. (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for tuning operation of servo motors used in connection with a guillotine cutter for separating individual sheets from a continuous web, the guillotine cutter blade driven by a servo motor to cyclically lower and raise to transversely cut the web transported below the cutter blade, the tuning method comprising: selecting a plurality of discrete positions in a guillotine blade cycle for which to determine tuning coefficients; determining tuning coefficients at the discrete positions; interpolating tuning coefficients for positions between the discrete positions; and applying the determined and the interpolated tuning coefficients to the servo motor. Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 3 REJECTIONS A. Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellants' Background of the Invention in the Specification (hereinafter "alleged admitted prior art" or "AAPA") in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,936,366 to Hamamura and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,892,345 to Olsen. B. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Hamamura, further in view of Olsen, and further in view of U.S. Patent No.5, 121,663 to Tahara. C. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Hamamura, further in view of Olsen, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,658,370 to Christ. D. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Hamamura, further in view of Olsen, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,037,738 to Morita. E. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Hamamura, further in view of Olsen, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,070,465 to Kato. F. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Hamamura, further in view of Olsen, Tahara, and Christ. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal for the first-stated rejection A on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 4 Â§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We address the rejections B-F of the dependent claims separately, infra. ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellantsâ€™ contentions regarding the Examinerâ€™s obviousness rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2), the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellantsâ€™ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 8-11). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. A. Issue: Under Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "selecting a plurality of discrete positions", within the meaning of claim 1? Appellants contend that "the evaluation of Hamamura is conducted throughout the circular feed motion of the table 14, not at 'discrete positions,' as claimed." (App. Br. 10) However, in reviewing the record, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Hamamura's "each 'instructed position' in the circular feed motion is a discrete position." (Ans. 9; Hamamura col. 4, ll. 30-47). Therefore, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. B. Issue: Under Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 5 "determining tuning coefficients at the discrete positions" within the meaning of claim 1? Appellants contend: [T]he text of "col. 4" discusses particular steps in the above- described method, in which the "value of the servo parameters" are set based on the point "at which the oscillation is about to occur." Id. at col. 2, lines 41-42. See, for example, Hamamura at col. 4, lines 35-41, relating to the setting "servo control parameters to appropriate values on the basis of a decision made by the oscillation decision unit 39." (App. Br. 11). Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. The Examiner finds, and we agree that "[t]he reason for Hamamura setting servo parameters has no bearing on the broad claim language in claim 1." The plain language of the claim 1 recites: "determining tuning coefficients at the discrete positions." We conclude that this language reads on the determination of servo parameters in any form in Hamamura. (See Ans. 9). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. C. Issue: Under Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "interpolating tuning coefficients for positions between the discrete positions" within the meaning of claim 1? Appellants contend that "Olsen teaches controlling velocity and acceleration, but provides no mention of 'tuning coefficients,' as claimed." (App. Br. 12). Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 6 However, we agree with the Examiner that the limitation at issue would have been taught or suggested by Olsen's teaching that "the interpolator 5 interpolates additional points between points to which the machine tool should be commanded and adjusts the velocity and acceleration of the machine tool . . . ." (Ans. 10; Olsen col. 2, ll. 27-33). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. D. Issue: Under Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in combining the cited references relied upon in the rejection of claim 1? Appellants contend: One of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Hamamura with a reference providing any sort of interpolation, including the path planning of Olsen, because such a modification would render the device of Hamamura unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would change its principle of operation. Put simply, because the device of Hamamura evaluates the servo control continuously, there are no discrete points between which to interpolate. (App. Br. 13-14). Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner's response as follows: Applicant's argument beginning on the top of page 13 is simply incorrect and re-states the same argument as above (that Hamamura does not show discrete positions). It has already been stated that the discrete positions are shown through any NC program and the Olsen reference is specifically made to take a machine tool cutting program and interpolate additional points between instructed points. Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 7 (Ans. 10). For the reasons discussed above in section A, we agree that Hamamura would have taught or suggested "discrete positions" We also observe that Hamamura teaches "[t]he servomechanism adjusting units 28 and 29 use the functions of a processor included in a NC unit, and execute a procedure expressed by a flow chart shown in FIG. 4 to set automatically servo parameters . . . ." (Hamamura col. 4, ll 5-8). (Emphasis added). Therefore, Hamamura teaches a digital embodiment which would not "evaluate[] the servo control continuously" in the manner contended by Appellants. (App. Br. 14). We therefore find that the combination of cited references would not render the device of Hamamura unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of operation of Hamamura that uses "discrete positions." Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. E. DEPENDENT CLAIMS (REJECTIONS B âˆ’ F) Appellants contend that claims 2, 6-9, and 11 are allowable at least based on similar reasons to those set forth above, with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 14-16). We did not find these arguments persuasive, for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Appellants also contend that the additional cited secondary references fail to overcome the deficiencies of the base combination of AAPA, Hamamura, and Olsen. (Id.). Because we find no deficiencies regarding the base combination of AAPA, Hamamura, and Olsen, we sustain the rejections B-F of claims 2, 6-9, and 11 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Appeal 2010-005640 Application 11/639,588 8 DECISION1 We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claim 1, 2, 6-9, and 11 under Â§ 103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tkl 1 In the event of further prosecution, to the extent that claim 11 fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter of at least claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 10 from which claim 11 depends (because the recited â€œa guillotine cutter" is completely outside the scope of method claims 1 to 10), we leave it to the Examiner to consider an objection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, fourth paragraph. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006).