Ex Parte Turnbull et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

15223345 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/223,345 07/29/2016 Robert Dean Turnbull
3705 7590 12/21/2018
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC
U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
291448-01405 2901
EXAMINER
ADAMS, GREGORY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT DEAN TURNBULL,
BRENT ALLEN YOUNG, and
EDWARD EUGENE DONALDSON1
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11-26. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Stolle Machinery Company, LLC is identified as the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 1) and also is the Applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 5, 11, and 13 are independent with claim 5 reproduced below.
5. A staging assembly for a shell press assembly
sheet feeder assembly, the shell press assembly including an
infeed and the sheet feeder assembly, the sheet feeder assembly
including a feeder actuator, the feeder actuator having a first
path and a second path, the staging assembly comprising:
a staging assembly frame assembly defining a first sheet
bay, a second sheet bay, a support bay, and a staging bay;
the first sheet bay structured to temporarily support a first
number of material sheets;
the second sheet bay structured to temporarily support a
second number of material sheets;
the support bay structured to support the feeder actuator;
the first sheet bay disposed immediately adjacent the
support bay;
the second sheet bay disposed immediately adjacent the
support bay;
the first sheet bay disposed immediately adjacent the
staging bay; and
the second sheet bay disposed immediately adjacent the
staging bay.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11-15, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anater (US 2004/0071539 Al, pub.
Apr. 15, 2004) and Bergeron (US 2008/0253871 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2008).
Claims 16-20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anater, Bergeron, and Hopwood (US 2012/0076632 Al,
pub. Mar. 29, 2012).
2
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
ANALYSIS
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11-15, 21, 22, 24, and 25
Rejected Over Anater and Bergeron
Appellant argues claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 as one
group and claims 13-15 as another group. See Appeal Br. 10-20. We select
independent claims 5 and 13 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner relies on Anater to disclose the elements of claim 5 to
include first and second sheet bays ( stacks 18 on stacking stations 24) and a
support bay for robots 2, 4, and a staging bay (first conveyor 6), but not to
disclose a staging/rame assembly. Final Act. 2-5. The Examiner relies on
Bergeron to teach a staging frame assembly defining a first and a second bay
(work stations 13) with support bay for robot 11 and a staging bay. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that Anater does not disclose a sheet bay structured
to temporarily support material sheets. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that
"sheet bay" is defined as "structured to support generally planar members"
and "structured to temporarily support material sheets 1 and is not structured
to support such as cups or non-planar containers/boxes." See Appeal Br. 14
(quoting Spec. 10:24 and 11:7-9). Appellant also argues that "structured to"
is defined to mean "the identified element or assembly has a structure that is
shaped, sized, disposed, coupled and/or configured to perform the identified
verb." Appeal Br. 14 (quoting Spec. 4:19-28).
We agree with the Examiner that Anater discloses stacking stations 24
that correspond to the claimed sheet bays. The Examiner correctly finds that
stacking stations 24 provide a support surface structured to support stack 18
thereupon. Ans. 4--5. Anater discloses stacking stations 24 supporting stack
18 of containers 8, which have planar bottoms. Anater, Figs. 1--4, 10-13.
3
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Appellant has not explained persuasively how the definition of "sheet
bay" being "not structured to support such as cups or non-planar containers/
boxes" (Appeal Br. 14; see Spec. 11 :7-9) prevents stacking stations 24 from
being "sheet bays" just because containers 8 of Anater are for baking.
We agree with the Examiner that Anater' s working stations 24 are
structured to support material sheets as claimed. Appellant's Specification
discloses first and second sheet bays 80, 90 "are substantially similar" and
"the first sheet bay 80 includes a generally horizontal planar member 82."
Spec. 11: 1--4, see Fig. 1. Anater discloses stacking stations 24 as generally
horizontal planar members in Figures 1-5 that support a stack of containers
8 that have planar bottoms. We have no contrary evidence or argument from
Appellant on this point. See Reply Br. 2---6; Appeal Br. 14--16; Ans. 4--5.
Anater also discloses that the container management system can be
used to process stacks of "lids" and other containers and objects of various
shapes and sizes without alteration. Anater ,r,r 5, 24. A skilled artisan would
understand from these disclosures that stacking stations 24 are configured to
support planar material sheets. Thus, the Examiner had a sound basis to find
that Anater's stacking stations 24 are structured to support material sheets
because the stations include a generally horizontal support like the structure
used in Appellant's sheet bays to support material sheets. See Spec. 11: 1--4.
The Examiner also correctly finds that Anater discloses sheet bays 24
to be "immediately adjacent" to support bay for robot 4 and to staging bay 6
because they are next to one another with no one or nothing between them.
Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 7-8 ( citing definition of "immediately" as "with no one
or nothing between" from Evidence Appendix Exh. 1 ). The Examiner also
finds that Bergeron discloses immediately adjacent spacing. Ans. 8.
4
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Appellant acknowledges that "immediately adjacent" is not defined in
the Specification, but argues that "adjacent" and "immediately adjacent" are
described in an embodiment. Id. at 16-1 7. Appellant also argues that the
"immediately adjacent" means something other than "adjacent" and means
"with no object or space intervening." Id. at 17-18. Appellant argues that
Anater discloses a considerable space between support bay 4 and sheet bays
24 so those elements are not immediately adjacent one another. Id. at 18.
The Examiner has the better position. The Specification discloses that
when sheet bays 80, 90, support bay 70, and staging bay 100 are "generally
square" as viewed from above, the first and second sheet bays 80, 90 can be
disposed adjacent or immediately adjacent to "a lateral side of the support
bay." Spec. 12:23-31. The Specification does not indicate how, or even
that, "immediately adjacent" disposition differs from "adjacent" disposition.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate bays 70, 80, 90, 100 with generally square-shaped,
planar floor members 72, 82, 92, 102. The Specification does not indicate
whether Figures 1 and 2 show sheet bays 80, 90 as "immediately adjacent"
or "adjacent" to support bay 70 and staging bay 100 or another arrangement.
See id. In any case, Figures 1 and 2 show frame members disposed between
bays 70, 80, 90, 100. Thus, both "adjacent" and "immediately adjacent"
appear to allow for intervening structures between bays. See Reply Br. 9
(bays are separated by frame members 54 or other constructs). Claim 5 does
not require the first bay or the second sheet bay to contact a support bay or a
staging bay. Nor does claim 5 require the sheet bays to have planar or
square floor members that contact a planar or a square support bay floor
member or a planar or a square staging bay floor member.
5
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
As a result, the Examiner's interpretation of "immediately adjacent"
to allow for space between the bays (Ans. 7) is reasonable when interpreted
in light of Appellant's Specification and is consistent with the Specification.
We are not persuaded that we should interpret "immediately adjacent" to
mean that there is no space between some unclaimed elements of the bays or
that the bays and other elements contact one another. Appeal Br. 18-19.
Appellant essentially urges us to interpret this limitation to require the sheet
bays and support/staging bays to contact each other, i.e., to have no space
between. However, claim 5 does not require the sheet bays to contact the
staging bay or the support bay. The Specification does not disclose such an
arrangement either. Nor does claim 5 require the first and second bays to be
immediately adjacent to a "lateral side" of the support bay as disclosed in the
Specification.
We agree with the Examiner that Anater's stacking stations 24 (sheet
bays) are immediately adjacent to a support bay for robot 4 and staging bay
( conveyor 6), i.e., with no intervening elements in Figures 1--4. Appellant's
asserted definition of "immediately" in Exhibit 1 to mean "with no one or
nothing between" is satisfied by Anater' s teaching of stacking stations 24
immediately next to robot 4 and conveyor 16 with no intervening element(s).
Robot 4 thus can service the other bays 24, 16 with no intervening object to
impede its reach or its operation. The definition of "immediately" in Exhibit
2 to mean "in direct connection ... " is inconsistent with the claim language
and Specification. The definition of "immediately" to mean "with no object
or space intervening" in Exhibit 3 is inconsistent with the claim language
interpreted in light of the Specification and drawings, which disclose spaces
between at least some bays in Figure 2.
6
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Anater shows stacking stations 24 immediately adjacent to robot 4 and
conveyor 16 (staging bay) with no elements in between and all within easy
reach of robot 4 to reduce cycle time. Anater ,r,r 24--27, 40-43, Figs. 1--4;
Ans. 7-8. The presence of a slight space between stacking stations 24 and
robot 4 and conveyor 6 is consistent with our interpretation of "immediately
adjacent" in light of the Specification. We are not persuaded that the space
is a "considerable space" (Appeal Br. 18) because stations 24 and bay 16 are
well within robot 4's reach. Anater, Fig. 1. Moreover, we do not interpret
"immediately adjacent" to require the bays to contact one another, i.e., with
no space in between. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11,
12, 21, 22, 24, and 25.
Claims 13-15
Independent claim 13 recites a method with the first and second sheet
bays "structured to temporarily support a first number of material sheets."
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). The Specification defines "material sheets" as
"generally planar members and specifically excludes other constructs such
as cups and containers/boxes." Spec. 8:26-28.
Appellant's argument that neither Anater nor Bergeron is structured to
support "material sheets" (Appeal Br. 20) does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding that Anater discloses this feature. Anater discloses that
stacking stations 24 have planar supports that are structured to support lids
and objects of various shapes and sizes. Anater ,r,r 5, 24, Figs. 1-5. Thus,
stacking stations 24 are structured to support material sheets as claimed. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim."). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
7
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and recites the step of disposing a
first number of material sheets in the first sheet bay while utilizing the feeder
actuator to move a number of material sheets from the second sheet bay to
the staging bay.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites a similar method step for
the second sheet bay. See Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
We agree with the Examiner that Anater discloses the steps recited in
claims 14 and 15 of the feeder actuator (robot) moving material sheets from
one sheet bay to the staging bay while material sheets are supplied to the
other sheet bay. Ans. 9. Anater discloses that when one stacking station 24
is almost empty, robot 2 requests another load of the same materials from
storage, and transfer vehicle 26 delivers the requested materials to the other
stacking station 24. Anater ,r 43. Robot 2 continues to remove materials 8
from the first stacking station 24 until the materials are depleted, whereupon
"the first robotic device 2 automatically moves on to picking from the
adjacent container stacking station 24," which was resupplied with materials
that were delivered while robot 2 was removing materials 8 from the other
stacking station 24 as claimed. See id.
Appellant's argument that Anatar does not disclose "simultaneous
action" (Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 6-7) is not commensurate with the scope
of claims 14 and 15. Moreover, a skilled artisan would understand that robot
2 moves materials 8 from a first stacking station 24 while a second, adjacent
stacking station 24 is loaded with more materials 8, i.e., simultaneously.
Once materials 8 are depleted from the first stacking station 24, robot 2
automatically picks materials 8 from the adjacent, refilled stacking station
24. Anater ,r 43. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15.
8
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Claims 16-20, 23, and 26
Rejected Over Anater, Bergeron, and Hopwood
We also agree with the Examiner that Hopwood discloses a "feeder
actuator control system structured to receive a first sheet bay unavailable
signal and a second sheet bay unavailable signal" as recited in claim 16.
Hopwood uses laser sensors 37, 38 to detect the presence or absence of
plates 11 in a datum region so that control 36 can control elevators 26, 29.
Final Act. 7-8. Sensor 37 detects the presence or absence of a top plate and
controls the advancement of elevator 26. Hopwood ,r 31, Figs. 5(a}-5(e).
Appellant argues that Hopwood' s sensors inform the system that a
majority of the plates have not been removed from stack 1 rather than no
plates are available. Reply Br. 8. Appellant argues that a "running low"
signal in Hopwood does not teach an "unavailable signal" of claim 16." Id.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because Hopwood's sensors
37, 38 detect the presence or absence (i.e., the unavailability) of plates 11.
Hopwood ,r 31. Sensors 37, 38 signal control 36 to advance second elevator
29 so plates are in a proper position and both elevators are in active positions
for an overlap period before the first stack 1 is finished. Id. ,r 32. Therefore,
sensors 36, 37 signal the height of plates 11 so that control 36 can arrange
and elevate stacks to provide a continuous stream of plates.
Appellant uses a similar unavailable signal with its first and second
sheet bays. Weight or proximity sensors are "structured to detect when the
stack height has dropped to a predetermined level" in the first and second
sheet bays. Spec. 16: 19-27. An "unavailable signal" is generated when the
stack height in a sheet bay falls below a predetermined level, i.e., before the
sheet bay is completely empty with no sheets remaining.
9
Appeal2018-005045
Application 15/223,345
Hopwood discloses a similar arrangement in which sensors 3 7, 3 8
generate an unavailable signal for control 36 when a stack falls below a
predetermined level. Hopwood ,r,r 30-32. The Examiner's findings are
consistent with claim 16 when interpreted in light of the Specification.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 and claims 17-20,
which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 20-23.
The Examiner relies on Hopwood to teach planar sheet bay members
and a feeder table disposed above the ground as recited in claims 23 and 26,
which depend from claim 5. See Ans. 11; Final Act. 10-11. Appellant does
not dispute that Hopwood's elements are planar. Appellant argues that the
elements are not part of a "bay" as defined in their Specification. See Reply
Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive because it amounts to an individual
attack on the references. The Examiner relies on Anater to teach sheet bays,
support bay, and staging bay as discussed above for the rejection of claim 5.
The Examiner relies on Hopwood to teach planar support surfaces for bays.
Ans. 11. This finding is reasonable given Anater's teaching of flat stacking
stations 24 that support containers 8 with flat bottoms and that are structured
to support lids and other objects of different sizes and shapes. Anater ,r,r 5,
24, Figs. 1--4. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 26.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10