Ex Parte Trudeau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2013

12142966 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSEPH A. TRUDEAU, ROBERT F. MARCINIK,
EDWARD M. IFKOVITS, RUSSELL W. HOLBROOK,
and RICHARD PROCHUT
____________

Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 2 -
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a transport system. Spec. 1, para.
[001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A reconfigurable transport system, comprising:
a transport device for receiving items in a first orientation
in one of a first portion and a second portion of the transport
device and releasing the items from the other of the first portion
and the second portion, the transport device comprising:
a plurality of first support rollers;
at least one first transport element rotating around the
plurality of first support rollers in a first direction; and
a plurality of second support rollers;
at least one second transport element in opposing relation
to the at least one first transport element, the at least one second
transport element rotating around the plurality of second
support rollers in a second direction opposite to the first
direction, wherein items received between the transport
elements are conveyed along a transport axis;
a positioning device for selectively moving the second
portion between a first position in which the transport device
maintains the items in the first orientation, and a second
position in which the transport device rotates the items
substantially about the transport axis to a second orientation;
wherein the positioning device further comprises:
a stationary frame;
a selectively rotatable guide disposed on the frame;
a first gear element disposed on the guide;
a second gear element engaging the first gear element;
and
a drive element for selectively driving the second gear
element to rotate the guide, wherein rotation of the guide moves
the second portion between the first position and the second
position; and
a plurality of support elements rotatably supporting the
guide on the frame.
Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 3 -
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogle and Cargill.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ogle, Cargill and Belec.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ogle, Cargill, Belec and Gämmerler.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ogle, Cargill, Belec, Gämmerler and Fraley.

OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 6, 8 and 9
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Ogle discloses all of the elements of claim 1,
including a gear drive for the positioning device, such that Ogle lacks only
an explicit disclosure of a first gear element and a second gear element.
Ans. 4-5. The Examiner relies on Cargill as disclosing a guide with a first
gear element disposed on the guide and a second gear element engaging the
first gear element. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
Fraley
Cargill
Gämmerler
Belec
Ogle

US 1,456,726
US 4,570,782
US 4,889,333
US 5,368,287
US 6,823,981 B2
May 29, 1923
Feb. 18, 1986
Dec. 26, 1989
Nov. 29, 1994
Nov. 30, 2004
Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 4 -
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
use first and second gear elements, as shown by Cargill, to rotate a
positioning device. Id.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to
what is individually taught by Ogle and Cargill, respectively. App. Br.10-
12. Instead, Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing that the Examiner
has failed to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to combine Ogle and Cargill to achieve the claimed invention.
App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that Cargill is used to transport a workpiece
from one workstation to the next in a horizontal plane on a manufacturing
floor and, as such, someone of ordinary skill would not be motivated to
apply Cargill to a system that conveys and orients sheet material along a
feed path as in Ogle. App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner responds that Ogle discloses the entire invention of
claim 1, including the use of a gear drive, and lacks only an explicit teaching
that the gear drive includes first and second gear elements. Ans. 7. The
Examiner states that Cargill was relied on only to teach the use of first and
second gear elements in a gear drive. Id. The Examiner finds that the gear
elements would have performed the same function in the combination as
they do separately. Id. According to the Examiner, since all of the elements
are known in the art, and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could
have combined them to achieve predictable results, it would have been
obvious to use a first and second gear element to cause rotation of a rotatable
guide. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that the combination would have
produced predictable results because the interaction of gears is well-known.
Ans. 8-9.
Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 5 -
With respect to Appellants’ argument that the purpose of Cargill is not
directed to conveying sheet material, claim 1 is not limited to conveying
sheet material. See Clms. App’x., Claim 1 (“for receiving items”).
Moreover, it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as
that disclosed in Appellants’ Specification in order to support the conclusion
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). “A reference may be read for all that it
teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.” In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007). The Examiner did not err in relying on Cargill to
teach first and second gear elements in a gear drive.
Appellants do not otherwise challenge the Examiner’s statement that
the interaction of first and second gears in a drive assembly is well known.
Here, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on explicit
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(requiring an obviousness conclusion to be based)
cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) . We are not persuaded that the Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 6, 8 and 9
Claims 6, 8 and 9 depend directly from claim 1. Clms. App’x.
Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of these claims apart
from the arguments that we have previously considered above with respect
to claim 1. For the same reasons expressed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8 and 9.
Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 6 -
Unpatentability of Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
plurality of first support rollers comprises a first end roller, wherein the
plurality of second support rollers comprises a second end roller, and
wherein the transport device further comprises a nip roller forming a nip
with the first end roller for engaging items passing therebetween.” Clms.
App’x. The Examiner relies on Belec as disclosing a nip roller. Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a nip roller to
achieve the claimed invention. Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would do this to press an object between two
rollers. Id.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Belec
discloses the dependent limitation. App. Br. 13. Instead, Appellants
traverse the rejection by arguing, in conclusory fashion, that the Examiner
failed to present evidence of a motivation to combine the references. Id.
Otherwise, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would use a nip roller to press an object between
two rollers. Ans. 6.
The Examiner’s rejection states a proper case of obviousness,
complete with articulated reasoning with rational underpinning supporting
the use of Belec’s nip roller in the modified Ogle device. Appellants’
conclusory argument is insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s case. We
sustain the rejection of claim 3.

Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 7 -
Unpatentability of Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
first end roller, the second end roller, and the nip roller are supported on the
guide on respective cantilevered shafts.” Clms. App’x. The Examiner
relies on Gämmerler as disclosing rollers that are cantilevered. Ans. 6. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to use cantilevered support for the
rollers. Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would do this to allow for adjustability of the rollers. Id.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Gämmerler
discloses the dependent limitation. Instead, Appellants traverse the rejection
by arguing, in conclusory fashion, that the Examiner failed to present
evidence of a motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 13.
Otherwise, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would use cantilevered supports to allow for
adjustability. Ans. 6.
The Examiner’s rejection states a proper case of obviousness,
complete with articulated reasoning with rational underpinning supporting
the use of Gämmerler’s cantilevered rollers. Appellants’ conclusory
argument is insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s case. We sustain the
rejection of claim 4.

Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 8 -
Unpatentability of Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and adds the following limitations:
wherein the first end roller and the nip roller are each
supported on the respective cantilevered shafts by a mounting
assembly comprising:
a link pivotably mounted on the respective shaft; and
a locking device for selectively locking the link to the
respective shaft.
Clms. App’x.
The Examiner relies on Fraley as disclosing a roller supported by a
link pivotably mounted on shafts that are cantilevered. Ans. 6. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a link and locking
mechanism. Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would do this to adjust the position of a roller. Id.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Fraley
discloses the dependent limitation. App. Br. 13. Instead, Appellants
traverse the rejection by arguing, in conclusory fashion, that the Examiner
failed to present evidence of a motivation to combine the references. Id.
Otherwise, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would use a link and locking mechanism to adjust
a roller. Ans. 6.
The Examiner’s rejection states a proper prima facie case of
obviousness, complete with articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
supporting the use of Fraley’s link and locking mechanism. Appellants’
conclusory argument is insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s case. We
sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Appeal 2011-011813
Application 12/142,966

- 9 -
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 9 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh