Kliklok Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 27, 2020

2020001557 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/058,561 03/02/2016 Jeff DEERING 045-144 9500
1009 7590 10/27/2020
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
EXAMINER
IGBOKWE, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF DEERING
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Kliklok Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 2–5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, and
17. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a carton forming or feeding
machine using controlled motion.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A machine for forming a carton from a carton blank in a
hopper, comprising:
at least one mover including a picker for picking the
carton blank from the hopper and associating the carton blank
with the mover; and
a controlled motion track for moving the at least one
mover and picker along a path of travel to a stationary position
for engaging the carton blank in the hopper.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Harston US 8,047,530 B2 Nov. 1, 2011
Jacobs US 2003/0230941 A1 Dec. 18, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Harston. Ans. 3.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Harston and Jacobs. Id. at 4, 5.
OPINION
Anticipation: Claims 1 and 8
The issue raised in contesting the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 8 is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Harston discloses “a
controlled motion track for moving at least one mover and picker along a
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561

3
path of travel to a stationary position.” Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal
Br. 3–4 (asserting that Harston uses a “continuous motion approach” that
“cannot achieve the claimed ‘stationary’ position” and that Harston’s
support shaft 30 and/or crank arm 53, on which the Examiner reads the
claimed “mover” (Ans. 3), “is never stationary during the picking process
as a result of the continuous motion of the machine”).
Referring to Figures 7 and 18 of Harston, the Examiner explains:
[A]s the movers [(support shaft 30 and crank arm 53)] and
pickers (suction cups[] 32) move along the curve[d] path of the
track from position A to position D, there is a slight period in
time where the picker (suction cups 32) is stationary in order to
move in a straight line into the opening 21, referred to as “node
point” E (See Col 5 lines 53-62). Examiner contends that the
stationary position occurs at the node point E, because the
picker has to go through a zero velocity state in order to change
directions, which is deemed stationary at that state, that allows
the picker to slide in and out of the opening of the magazine to
pull the carton blanks before changing direction towards
position H when the carton comes clear from the magazine.
Ans. 7–8.
The problem with the Examiner’s explanation is that it does not
account for the fact that claim 1 recites a continuous motion track for
moving both the mover and the picker to a stationary position. The
Examiner finds that there is a slight period in which the movement of
support shaft 30 and crank arm 53 causes suction cups 32 (i.e., the structure
on which the Examiner reads the claimed “picker”) to be stationary at node
point E. Ans. 7. Even if we were to accept this finding that suction cups 32
reach a stationary position at node E, the Examiner does not find that
support shaft 30 and crank arm 53 (i.e., the structure on which the Examiner
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561

4
reads the claimed “mover”) are moved to a stationary position at any time
during the cycle of Harston’s rotary transfer mechanism. Thus, the
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Harston
discloses “a controlled motion track for moving the at least one mover and
picker along a path of travel to a stationary position” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claim 8,
which depends from claim 1, as anticipated by Harston.

Obviousness: Claim 6
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Harston and
Jacobs relies on the aforementioned unsupported finding that Harston
discloses “a controlled motion track for moving the at least one mover and
picker along a path of travel to a stationary position” as recited in claim 1,
from which claim 6 depends. See Ans. 4 (stating that “Hartson teaches
essentially all the limitations according to claim 1” and finding that “Harston
does not disclose wherein the track having a linear portion”). The Examiner
relies on Jacobs only for its teaching of a track having a combination of
curved and linear portions. Id. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious “to incorporate a linear portion as taught by Jacobs” into
Harston’s track because this is a known “configuration (linear and non-linear
shaped tracks)” that “provides a means to solve a wide variety of problems
([0056] lines 1-8 of Jacobs) such as increasing flexibility of the process, and
optimal space utilization.” Ans. 4. Even if Harston were modified as the
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561

5
Examiner proposes, by providing both a curved portion and a linear portion,3
this would not remedy the aforementioned deficiency in Harston with
respect to moving both the mover and the picker to a stationary position as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 as
unpatentable over Harston and Jacobs.

Obviousness: Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15
Appellant’s independent claim 10 recites, in pertinent part, a
controlled motion track for delivering movers and their associated blanks to
a position for erection of the blank into a carton, “the track including a linear
portion.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Harston’s
track (carrier means 29 and/or continuous stationary cam track 34) lacks a
linear portion, but determines it would have been obvious to modify
Harston’s track “to incorporate a linear portion as taught by Jacobs, as . . .
merely an obvious choice of design because it is known in the relevant art to
use such configuration as . . . a means to solve a wide variety of problems
. . . such as increasing flexibility of the process, and optimal space
utilization.” Ans. 5 (citing Jacobs ¶ 56, ll. 1–8).
Appellant argues that modifying Harston’s track “to incorporate a
linear portion as taught by Jacobs,” as the Examiner proposes, “would
require a complete reworking of the Harston arrangement, which is inimical
to a finding of obviousness.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends, in essence,

3 The Examiner gives no hint that the proposed combination would entail
incorporating the variable-pitch transport, with linear motor modules, of
Jacobs into Harston. See Jacobs ¶ 56.
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561

6
that, in the absence of the teachings in Appellant’s Specification, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to modify
Harston’s track in this manner. Id.
Harston discloses a particular profile of continuous stationary cam
track 34 for the purpose of moving suction cups 32 along a predetermined
path, shown in Figures 7 and 18. In particular, Harston discloses:
[T]he means 31 for controlling the support shafts 30 comprises
a continuous stationary cam track 34, gear segments 35 on
pivots 36 on the carrier means 29 axially parallel to the drive
shaft 26, cam followers 37 on the gear segments permanently
engaged with the cam track, and pinions 38 secured coaxially to
the respective support shafts 30 and permanently meshing with
the gear segments, the profile of the cam track 34 being such as
to act through the cam followers 37 on the gear segments 35
along one part of the track to oscillate the respective pinions 38
to create a partial path of the respecting sets of four suction
cups 32 with a “node point” at the discharge opening 21 of the
magazine 22, and along another part of the track 34 to partially
rotate the pinions 38 so as to cause the respective sets of four
suction cups 32 to move past the receiving station 13 in the
same direction as the conveyor 14 with the respective cartons
20 generally parallel to the conveyor.
Harston 4:40–57.
Jacobs mentions that “linear motor modules . . . can be of an arbitrary
shape as desired and can be assembled into a path of arbitrary shape and size
. . . to solve a wide variety of problems.” Jacobs ¶ 56. The Examiner,
however, does not propose to incorporate such linear motor modules into
Harston’s track, nor does the Examiner explain how a track differing in
shape from that disclosed by Harston, such as a shape including a linear
portion, would solve any problem or better utilize space. In short, the
Examiner does not articulate sufficient reasoning with rational
Appeal 2020-001557
Application 15/058,561

7
underpinnings to explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to modify the shape of Harston’s track, which has been
thoughtfully designed to move the suction cups along a particular path, so as
to establish that the subject matter of claim 10 would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 10,
or claims 11, 14, and 15, which depend from claim 10, as unpatentable over
Harston and Jacobs.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8 102(a)(1) Harston 1, 8
6, 10, 11,
14, 15
103 Harston, Jacobs 6, 10, 11,
14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1, 6, 8, 10,
11, 14, 15

REVERSED