11895864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

Ex Parte Parks

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

11895864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

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. 11/895,864 08/28/2007 Bruce J. Parks ID 20070242 3253 70537 7590 12/17/2012 Prass LLP 2661 Riva Road Building 1000, Suite 1044 Annapolis, MD 21401 EXAMINER AUNG, SAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRUCE J. PARKS ____________________ Appeal 2010-005958 Application 11/895,864 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005958 Application 11/895,864 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maier (US 2003/0152400 A1; pub. Aug. 14, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to belt comprising systems and, more specifically, to a guide used to change belts in these systems.” Spec. para. [002]. Claims 31and 36 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 31, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 31. A belt installation guide used in an electrostatic marking system, said guide configured to facilitate transferring a belt in a belt module directly from said guide to rollers, said rollers positioned in said module to support an endless belt when operational; at least one of said rollers configured to move said belt around said rollers in a continuous fashion, said guide selected from the group consisting of module attached guides, guides detachable from said modules and mixtures thereof, said guides having a larger cross-sectional shape than the rollers and configured so as to accommodate transfer of a belt directly from said guides to said rollers with a minimum of belt damage, said guides configured to be located adjacent and in substantial horizontal alignment with said rollers when installing said belt by directly sliding it inboard entirely off said guides onto said rollers, and configured to be removed from horizontal alignment with said rollers when said installation is completed. Appeal 2010-005958 Application 11/895,864 3 OPINION Independent claim 31 is directed to a belt installation guide that includes guides configured to accommodate transfer of a belt inboard directly from the guides onto the rollers. Independent claim 36 is a method claim that is similar to claim 31 in that it calls for the step of sliding the belt from the guides inboard directly onto the rollers. The Specification does not contain a lexicographical definition of “directly,” which is commonly understood to mean, “without a person or thing coming between.” WEBSTER’S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY (Deluxe 2d ed. 1983) (“directly,” adv., definition 2). We discern nothing inconsistent with this definition in Appellant’s Specification. Consistent with this definition, the Specification states that belt 22 slides directly off the guides 25 onto the rollers 23, and this motion is depicted with nothing between the guides 25 and the rollers 23. Spec.1 para. [22]; figs. 4B, 4D, 4F. For both independent claims, the Examiner found that Maier’s guides (tubes 3) are configured to accommodate transfer of a belt (band 1) inboard directly from the guides (tubes 3) onto the rollers (drums 22 and receptacles 6). Ans. 3-10. Notably, the Examiner specifically found that Maier’s receptacles 6 and drums 2 together correspond to the claimed rollers. Ans. 6-10 (citing Maier para. [0028]). To begin, the Examiner’s finding is in error because Maier’s receptacles 6 are part of cover hood 4, not rollers 2. Maier, para. [0028]; fig. 1 Refers to the Specification as amended Sep. 11, 2009. 2 The Examiner’s reference to “drum 7” of Maier is incorrect, Maier’s drum is element 2. See Maier, para. [0029] (mistakenly referring to drum as element 7); see also paras. [0026], [0035] (properly identifying drum 2). We consider all of the Examiner’s references to element 7 of Maier to mean drum 2. Appeal 2010-005958 Application 11/895,864 4 1; contra. Ans. 6-10; App. Br. 11. Further, Maier’s guides (tubes 3) are configured to slide a belt (band 1) from the guides (tubes 3) sequentially across receptacles 6, edge 5 of cover hood 4, and component parts 7 before reaching the rollers (drums 23). Maier, paras. [0026]-[0036]; figs. 1-5. Therefore, Maier’s guides are not configured to accommodate transfer of a belt inboard directly from the guides onto the rollers as claimed. Because the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon an erroneous finding of fact, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 31 and 36 and their respective dependent claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31-39. REVERSED mls 3 Maier’s drums 2 correspond to rollers as claimed because they conduct and provide contour for band 1. Maier, para. [0026].