Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2014

11263762 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte ALFRED ALEXANDER TAYLOR
and GARRY RONALD MACKAY
____________________

Appeal 2011-012121
Application 11/263,762
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-16. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-012121
Application 11/263,762

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A slip conveyor assembly including:
at least two slip conveyors arranged in series so
that product delivered to an upstream one of the conveyors can
be delivered to each downstream one of the conveyors, each
conveyor having:
a longitudinally extending conveyor tray with a
longitudinally extending conveyor surface along which product
is conveyed by longitudinal reciprocation of the tray and
therefore the surface thereof,
with at least one of the trays being locatable in a
first longitudinal position and a second longitudinal position,
and
a drive assembly attached to each tray to cause the
longitudinal reciprocation thereof, the drive assembly attached
to said one of the trays being operable to displace said at least
one of the trays between the first and second positions,
said conveyor assembly further including:
a control assembly operatively associated with
each drive assembly, the control assembly controlling the drive
assemblies to provide for selective operation of the conveyors
so that the at least one of the trays is selectively movable
between the first and second positions thereof, and to cause the
reciprocation of the trays, with the displacement between an
adjacent pair of trays when the at least one of the trays is
displaced to the second position thereof being such that there is
a gap between the trays of the pair through which gap product
is delivered from the conveyor assembly; and wherein
the control assembly is configured to cause the tray
immediately upstream of the gap to reciprocate with a first
amplitude while the tray immediately downstream of the gap
reciprocates at a reduced amplitude relative to the first
amplitude.

Appeal 2011-012121
Application 11/263,762

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gregor (US 3,917,050; iss. Nov. 4, 1975) and
Komatsu (US 6,168,010 B1; iss. Jan. 2, 2001).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gregor, Komatsu, and Hittson (US 2,445,175; iss. July 13, 1948).
Claims 6-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gregor, Komatsu, and Cox (US 3,817,370; iss. June 18,
1974).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Gregor and Komatsu
The Examiner found that Gregor teaches at least two slip conveyors
19, 20, 21, 22 arranged in series with a drive assembly 31 attached to each
tray to cause longitudinal reciprocation and being operable to displace at
least one of the trays 19, 20, 21, 22 between first and second positions with a
gap between reciprocating beams 21, 22. Ans. 4 (citing Gregor, col. 4, ll.
49-52). In particular, The Examiner found that Gregor teaches a plurality of
vibratory conveyor sections 19, 20, 21, 22 arranged in end-to-end relation
between rails 17 for longitudinal vibratory movement parallel to the rails to
advance material along the path. Ans. 7-8 (citing Gregor, col. 4, ll. 13-20).
The Examiner interpreted the term “gap” to mean an opening and found that
Gregor teaches such a gap through which product is delivered from the
conveyor assembly. Ans. 8 (citing Gregor, col. 4, ll. 19-20; fig. 2). The
Examiner relied on Komatsu to disclose a control assembly as claimed.
Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-012121
Application 11/263,762

4
Appellants argue that there is no support in Gregor for finding tray
displacement between a first and a second position wherein “when the at
least one of the trays is displaced to the second position thereof being such
that there is a gap between the trays of the pair through which gap product is
delivered from the conveyor assembly,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10.
Regarding the method of claim 10, Appellants also argue that neither Gregor
nor Komatsu disclose “displacing one of the [longitudinally extending
conveyor] surfaces longitudinally relative to the next adjacent surface so that
a longitudinally extending gap exists between the surfaces through which
product is to be delivered.” App. Br. 18. Appellants contends that Gregor
does not disclose such limitations but instead discloses that a permanent
“gap” exists between the trays, regardless of the vibration of the trays, and
the drive assembly is not operable to displace at least one of the trays
between a first and a second longitudinal position. App. Br. 9-10.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s overly broad interpretation of
these limitations ignores the fact that these limitations recite the transitory
nature of the gap due to changeable structural configurations of the tray.
Reply Br. 4. Appellants assert that Gregor only discloses trays vibrating
about fixed positions rather than the claimed gap being formed by
displacement of adjacent trays. Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner’s finding that Gregor discloses a drive assembly that is
attached to each conveyor tray to cause longitudinal reciprocation of each
tray and displacement of each tray between a first and a second longitudinal
position is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Gregor discloses
a drive assembly 31 that causes each conveyor tray 19-22 to reciprocate (i.e.,
vibrate) in a longitudinal direction. See Ans. 4, 7-8; Gregor, col. 4, ll. 13-20.
Appeal 2011-012121
Application 11/263,762

5
The Examiner’s apparent treatment of this vibration as satisfying the further
limitation of displacement of one of the trays or tray surfaces between first
and second positions (claim 1) or displacement of one conveyor surface
longitudinally relative to a next adjacent conveyor surface (claim 10) is
inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. Appellants disclose a slip
conveyor assembly having a drive assembly 19 for each slip conveyor 11-16
where each drive assembly 19 reciprocates or oscillates a tray 18 of each
respective conveyor 11-16 about a generally central position. In addition,
drive assembly 19 displaces tray 18 of conveyor 11 to an upstream position
relative to the tray 18 of an adjacent conveyor 12 to form a gap between the
adjacent trays 18, 18 as shown in Figure 5. Spec. 4-5, paras. [0027-0031].
Product can fall through this gap to be delivered to a further conveyor and to
associated weighing and packaging machines. Spec. 5, para. [0031]. Claim
1 recites this dual movement as “a drive assembly attached to each tray to
cause the longitudinal reciprocation thereof, the drive assembly attached to
said one of the trays being operable to displace said at least one of the trays
between the first and second positions.” Claim 1 also recites that the control
assembly controls drive assemblies so at least one of the trays is selectively
movable between first and second positions, and to cause reciprocation of
the trays. Claim 10 recites “providing at least two upwardly facing
longitudinally extending conveyor surfaces that are horizontally reciprocated
to convey product along the surfaces” and “displacing one of the surfaces
longitudinally relative to a next adjacent surface . . . .” The Examiner has
not explained how the vibration of conveyor trays causes the displacement
of at least one tray to a second position such that there is a gap between
adjacent trays (claim 1), or so that a longitudinally extending gap exists
Appeal 2011-012121
Application 11/263,762

6
between the surfaces through which product is to be delivered (claim 10).
See Reply Br. 4, 6. The Examiner’s finding that Gregor discloses both of
these features by vibrating the trays effectively effectively reads the
limitations of moving or displacing the trays longitudinally out of claims 1
and 10. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, 15, and 16.
Claim 2 as unpatentable over Gregor, Komatsu, and Hittson
The Examiner relied on Hittson to teach a zero amplitude as recited in
claim 2 and not to remedy any deficiencies of Gregor or Komatsu as to
claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. See Ans. 6. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 2.
Claim 6-9, 11, and 14 as unpatentable over Gregor, Komatsu, and Cox
The Examiner relied on Cox to teach details of the drive assembly as
recited in claims 6-9, 11, and 14 and not to remedy deficiencies of Gregor or
Komatsu as to claims 1 and 10 from which claims 6-9, 11, and 14 depend.
See Ans. 6-7. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6-9, 11, and 14.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-16.

REVERSED

mls