Ex Parte Terhaag et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2013

11783066 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHIEL A.C. TERHAAG
and JEROEN A. A. VAN ASSEN
____________

Appeal 2011-004600
Application 11/783,066
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, 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, 2, 4, 6-10, and 13-17. App. Br. 5. Claims 3, 5, 11, and 12 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-004600
Application 11/783,066

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of folding a medium in a folding
apparatus containing a rotatable folding cylinder, a first
rotatable press member capable of engaging said folding
cylinder to form a first folding pinch, a second rotatable press
member, capable of engaging with said folding cylinder to form
a second folding pinch, and a medium feed means, said method
comprising the steps of:
a) feeding the medium with the medium feed means
towards the folding cylinder and between the first and second
pinch;
b) directing the medium into the first folding pinch
formed by engaging said first rotatable press member with said
folding cylinder, by rotating the folding cylinder in a first
direction;
c) forming a blouse in the medium in between said feed
means and the folding cylinder;
d) moving said blouse into said second pinch by rotating
the folding cylinder in a second direction, opposite to the first
direction, and correcting for medium skew prior to executing
step a) by driving the feed means in a reverse direction with
respect to the feeding direction until the leading edge of the
medium is aligned.

REJECTION1
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schmidlin (US 5,047,003; iss. Sep. 10, 1991) and
Baker (US 5,067,305; iss. Nov. 26, 1991).

1 In the Office action that was appealed, claim 17 was rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description and under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Rej. 2. These
rejections were subsequently vacated (Interview Summary, dated Jul. 12,
2010) and are not maintained in the Answer. See Ans. 2-4.
Appeal 2011-004600
Application 11/783,066

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Schmidlin discloses a method and apparatus
for folding a sheet with a medium feed means 82, first and second rotatable
press members 24, 24’ that engage a folding cylinder 22, and a blouse
curvature 12. Ans. 3 (citing figs. 1, 2). The Examiner found that Schmidlin
does not detect the skew of a sheet and subsequently correct the alignment,
but Baker discloses a folding device with a printer that comprises nips 106,
140 and correction of skew by reversing motors M1, M2. Ans. 4 (citing col.
7, ll. 60+). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
modify Schmidlin to correct skew, as taught by Baker, to assure proper or
desired alignment of the sheets for folding printed sheets and to include a
printing device with an inline combination, as taught by Baker, in Schmidlin
for folding printed sheets. Ans. 4. The Examiner also found that:
Baker clearly teaches nip rollers which act upon the leading
edge of the signatures by reversing the direction of rotary
movement in order to correct undesired skew/misalignment of
the signatures before forwarding through the nip; as discussed
supra. This is consistent with applicant's claimed limitations
directed towards the skew correction process. The nip rollers of
Baker act to feed the signatures to a downstream process and
are considered a feed means given the plain and ordinary
meaning in the art.
Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Baker’s sheet alignment disclosure differs
substantially from what is claimed and with regard to how the Examiner is
applying it because Baker discloses that a printed sheet or envelope is fed by
roller pair 102 and then by urge roller 104 into folder assembly 106 where
urge roller continues to rotate. App. Br. 14-15. Appellants also argue that
Appeal 2011-004600
Application 11/783,066

4
Baker’s motors M1 and M2 do not drive the feed roller pair 132 or urge
roller 140 but instead are used to drive Baker’s folding nips 106 and 140,
rather than the feed roller pair 102 or urge roller 104. App. Br. 15; Reply
Br. 3. As a result, Appellants argue that “if one of ordinary skill in the art
were to turn to Baker to align its sheet or to align sheets of a folding
apparatus, the skilled worker would reverse its folding system rollers M1
and M2, and not its feed rollers.” Reply Br. 3. We agree.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Baker discloses the use of a medium feed means to correct for medium skew
(claim 9) by driving the feed means in a reverse direction with respect to the
feeding direction (claims 1 and 17). The Examiner’s finding that Baker’s
motors M1 and M2 are feed means is unreasonably broad and inconsistent
with the claim language interpreted in light of Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants claim a folding apparatus (claim 9) and method of folding a
medium in a folding apparatus (claims 1 and 17) that comprises medium
feed means that feed a medium to a folding cylinder where the medium is
folded in a first and second pinch formed between the folding cylinder and
first and second rotatable press members. In contrast to the claimed subject
matter, Baker discloses motors M1 and M2 that are part of folders 106, 140
that form a nip at which printed sheets accumulate before being folded. The
printed sheets are fed to folder 106 by feed means comprising roller pair 102
and urge roller 104, and the assembled sheets are then driven into a buckled
chute 112 of assembly 106 by motor M1 and folded. Col. 6, ll. 22-55; fig. 3.
The printed/folded sheets can be fed to the nip of folder assembly 140 by
other feed means that include roller pair 132 and urge roller 134. The sheets
Appeal 2011-004600
Application 11/783,066

5
accumulate at folder assembly 140 until motor M2 drives the accumulated
sheets into buckle chute 160 to fold the sheets. Col. 7, ll. 3-13 and 41-46;
fig. 3. The Examiner has not adequately explained why a skilled artisan
would have been motivated to modify Schmidlin’s feed means based on
Baker’s teaching that the skew of sheets that accumulate at a folder can be
corrected by reversing motors of the folder assembly. Baker discloses that
sheets are clear of feed rollers 102 when the sheets accumulate at the nip of
folder 106 and urge roller 104 slips on the sheets as they are urged into the
nip of assembly 106. Col. 6, ll. 35-42; fig. 3. There is no indication that
feed rollers 102 or urge rollers 104 reverse direction during skew correction.
Folding assembly 140 appears to operate in similar manner. Col. 7, ll. 6-17.
As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 13-17.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 13-17.

REVERSED

mls