Ex Parte White

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

11213603 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER LEE WHITE
________________

Appeal 2011-003996
Application 11/213,603
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 20-24, 26, 28-39 and 41-46. 3
Claims 13-19 and 47-64 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 4
6, 25, 27 and 40 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).5

1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CMD
Corporation.
Appeal 2011-003996
Application 11/213,603

2
We AFFIRM. 1
Claims 1, 20 and 35 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 2
1. A bag making machine comprising: 3
an input stage; 4
a processing stage disposed to receive film 5
from the input stage; 6
a winder, disposed to receive bags from the 7
processing stage, wherein the winder comprises a 8
turret having a plurality of spindles mounted 9
thereon, wherein each spindle includes a sleeve 10
affixed on a respective one of the plurality of 11
spindles such that a roll of bags wound about the 12
sleeve may be removed from the sleeve while the 13
sleeve is affixed to the respective one of the 14
plurality of spindles wherein each sleeve is 15
removable without removing the respective one of 16
the plurality of spindles. 17
Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant have been 18
considered. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010) 19
(precedential). 20
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 20, 26, 28, 35 and 39 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gietman (US 22
5,390,875, issued Feb. 21, 1995) and Link (US 2,567,387, issued Sep. 11, 23
1951). Since the Appellant presents only a single argument addressing the 24
patentability of these claims, claim 1 is representative of the grouping. We 25
adopt and incorporate by reference the Examiner’s findings at page 3, line 26
16 (starting with “Regarding Claims 1, 7-8, and 12 . . .”) through page 4, line 27
7 (ending the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4) regarding the disclosure of 28
Gietman. We also adopt and incorporate by reference the Examiner’s 29
findings at page 4, lines 8-15 of the Answer (that is, the paragraph following 30
Appeal 2011-003996
Application 11/213,603

3
that bridging pages 3 and 4, excluding the last sentence) regarding the 1
teachings of Link relating to the embodiment depicted in Figures 4 and 5 of 2
Link’s drawing. The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 3
would have been obvious from the teachings of Gietman in combination 4
with the teachings of Link relating to the embodiment depicted in Figures 4 5
and 5 of Link’s drawing. (See Ans. 4, ll. 15-18). 6
The Appellant argues that the embodiment depicted in Figures 1-3 of 7
Link does not have a removable sleeve. (See Br. 11). The Appellant 8
additionally argues that replacing a bolt attachment at the distal axial end of 9
the structure depicted in Figure 1 of Link with a threaded connection similar 10
to that at the distal axial end of the structure depicted in claim 4 of Link 11
would result in an inoperative embodiment. (See Br. 12-13). As the 12
Examiner correctly points out, these arguments fail to address the 13
Examiner’s reasoning based on the combination of Link’s teachings 14
regarding the embodiment of Figures 4 and 5 with the disclosure of 15
Gietman. (Ans. 11-12). Since the Appellant fails to identify any error in the 16
findings or reasoning on which the Examiner actually relies, we sustain the 17
rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 20, 26, 28, 35 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 18
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gietman and Link. 19
The Appellant does not offer any additional arguments regarding the 20
rejection of claims 2-5, 9, 21-24, 29-34, 36-38, 41-44 and 46 under § 103(a) 21
as being unpatentable over Gietman, Link and Andersson (US 5,849,357, 22
issued Dec. 15, 1998); the rejection of claim 11 under § 103(a) as being 23
unpatentable over Gietman, Link and Selle (US 6,186,436 B1, issued Feb. 24
13, 2001); or the rejection of claim 45 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 25
Appeal 2011-003996
Application 11/213,603

4
over Gietman, Link, Andersson and Selle. (App. Br. 13). We sustain these 1
rejections as well. 2
3
DECISION 4
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 20-5
24, 26, 28-39 and 41-46. 6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 7
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). 8
9
AFFIRMED 10
11
12
13
Klh 14