COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: UNLOADING UNIT FOR SHIPS
Applicant's arrangement utilizing an inwardly discharging bucket wheel and
C-shaped conveyor mounted on a floating C-shaped support frame carried by
a gantry represents a patentable advance over the cited art.
Final Action: Reversed
***********************
Patent application 324,205 (Class 201-4), was filed on March 23, 1979
for an invention entitled BULK-MATERIAL UNLOADING UNIT FOR SHIPS OR LIKE
CARRIERS. The inventor is Rudiger Franke, assignor to Mannesmann Demag
AG. The Examiner in charge of the application took a Final Action on
May 7, 1982 refusing to allow it to proceed to patent. By letter of
March 18, 1983, Applicant withdrew his request for a Hearing.
The subject matter of this application relates to apparatus for unloading
bulk materials such as ore or crushed stone from ships. It consists of a
discharge bucket wheel and a number of conveyor belts mounted on a pivotal
boom carried by a gantry. Figure 1 of the application is shown below.
<IMG>
Gantry 3 has a boom system hinged to upper part 4. This boom system carries
the conveyers 17, 14, 15 and bucket wheel 13.
In the Final Action the application was refused in view of the following
patents.
United States 3,828,915 Aug. 13, 1974 Cox
1,421,787 July 4, 1922 Kininmonth
2,425,342 Aug. 12, 1947 Palmer
Germany 2,519,447 Nov. 11, 1976
Cox shows material handling equipment having an elevator unit depending from
a conveyor boom. Figure 1 of the patent is shown here.
<IMG>
Twin bucket wheels 41 load material on conveyor 42 from which it is transferred
to bucket elevator 30b and eventually reaches lowering conveyor 19.
Kininmonth relates to a bucket elevator for discharging ore or other cargoes
from ships and barges.
Palmer shows apparatus for removing bulk materials from bins, pits, containers
or cargo holds of barges and ships.
The German patent shows the use of a C-shaped conveyor section for overhead
conveying with the conveyor belts. Figure 1 of that patent is shown below.
<IMG>
Material 1 is placed on belt 4 at 12 and is moved between belts 4 and 5 to be
discharged in overhead hopper 3.
In that Final Action the Examiner stated (in part):
***
It is pointed out that United States patent No. 3,828,915 to
Cox clearly describes and shows a bulk-material unloading
system for ships comprising a gantry 1 movable alongside the
ship, a boom system 10a, 10b mounted on the gantry for
pivotal movement in a vertical plane, and rotational move-
ment about the vertical axis of a slewing ring 4a, a removing-
conveyor belt 17 associated with the boom system, an elevator
unit 30 including an upper C-shaped support portion arranged
at the tree end of the boom system to pivot about a vertical
axis 33c. A bucket wheel 41 rotatably mounted on the lower end
of said elevator unit, and a vertical conveyor 30b arranged
within said elevator unit and extending between said bucket
wheel and the removing-conveyor belt in a manner such that the
unloading location of the vertical conveyor is situated at the
removing-conveyor belt in the vicinity of the vertical pivot axis
33c of the C-shaped support portion of the elevator unit, sub-
stantially as defined by applicant in claim 1.
There is no patentable merit in merely specifying that the
vertical conveyor is a C-conveyor as opposed to a bucket
conveyor shown by Cox. German Patent No. 2,519,447 clearly
shows vertical conveyors of the type utilized by applicant
to be old and known.
The above cited United States patents to Cox, Kininmonth and
Palmer clearly describe and show the expediency of inter-
connecting a ship-unloading elevator unit to a boom system
by means of a parallelogram drive linkage so that the pivot
axis of the elevator unit is maintained in a vertical
position when the boom is pivoted in a vertical plane,
precisely as defined by applicant in claim 2.
***
In response to the Final Action the Applicant stated (in part):
***
Applicant maintains that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
is improper for the following reasons:
1) Even considered together, the cited references
do not disclose all the essential features
of applicant's claimed structure.
2) The Examiner's suggestion that it would be
obvious to substitute some of the elements
shown in one reference for elements shown
in the other reference has no basis in the
teachings of the prior art. In making the
suggestion the Examiner is relying on applic-
ant's teachings.
3) Above all, applicant is claiming a new and useful
combination having advantages which are not
remotely suggested in the prior art.
***
As compared with Cox, the present invention also contains
design differences. For example, the conveyor described
in the Cox patent is not C-shaped, but is S- or Z-shaped,
which makes it necessary to deflect it in two different
planes or to provide an intermediate conveyor. In order to
be fully functional, the conveyor must be inclined at a
specific angle, to ensure that the centre of gravity of the
pivotable part is located in the vicinity of the pivot axis.
These problems can be solved with considerably less structural
expense by the C-shaped conveyor which, in addition to this,
has a much more satisfactory conveying capacity. The endless
conveyor belt of a C-shaped conveyor of this kind has a
substantially higher discharge output, and this may be increased
still further by operating it at a higher speed. Furthermore,
a belt of this kind runs more quietly and this reduces not only
noise, but also vibration, and reduced vibration in turn
reduces the amount of material scattered.
Finally, the applicant would again draw attention to the in-
wardly unloading bucket wheel, especially to the conveyor
extending into it, as a feature which is distinguished from
the invention disclosed in Cox.
Since the type of transfer according to the present inven-
tion eliminates the intermediate conveyor disclosed in the
Cox patent, and the very unsatisfactory overhead according
to the prior art which is discussed in the present application with
reference to German Patent No. 21 00 956, it is submitted that
the inwardly unloading bucket wheel, and especially the conveyor
extending into it, is a feature distinguished fran the prior
art and therefore patentable. According to the present inven-
tion, the shorter path of transfer has a favourable effect on
the performance of the conveyor and additionally the pivotability
and the location of the centre of gravity are also favourable.
Applicant had requested a hearing. However, a subsequent letter withdrew the
request.
Claim 1 of the application reads:
A bulk-material unloading unit for ships or like carriers, compris-
ing a gantry which is adapted to travel alongside the said
carrier, a vertically-pivotable boom system arranged upon the
gantry an d adapted to rotate about a vertical axis, a remov ing-
~onveyor belt associated with the boom system, a C-shaped support
frame arranged at the free end of the said boom system to pivot
about a vertical axis, a vertically-rotating inwardly-discharging
bucket wheel mounted floatingly on the lower member of said C-shaped
support frame, and a vertical C-conveyor being arranged between
the said bucket-wheel and the removing-conveyor belt and being
mounted so that the ejection location thereof is situated at the
removing-conveyor belt in the vicinity of the vertical pivot axis
of the said support frame.
The consideration before the Board is whether or not the application is
directed to a patentable advance over the art.
V'e note that the Final Action details the Cox structure by numerals to show
same of the components utilized in this application. Further it adds that
the use of a C-conveyor is shown in the German patent and the parallelogram
drive linkage i s found in Cox, Kinenmonth and Palmer. On the other hand the
applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the essential
features of his claimed structure which represents a useful combination hav-
ing advantages not remotely suggested by these references.
Looking at the Cox reference we find that twin bucket wheels are arranged
for rotation about the outer end of the gathering feeder conveyor support.
This feeder conveyor moves the material to a bucket conveyor for vertical
movement out of the ship's hold to discharge it onto a belt conveyor and
eventually move it to the dock area. The Final Action states that Cox
has an "upper C-shaped support portion arranged at the free end of the
boom system to pivot about a vertical axis 33C". We agree when viewing
the upper portion of the boom end configuration in Cox it is the form of
a "C". However, wh en viewing the complete structure at the end of the boom
we see that it includes the vertical bucket conveyor with the bucket wheels
attached at the bottom. This configuration resembles a "Z" type of
structure rather than a "C" type used by the applicant.
The applicant maintains that he has a particular combination of structure
having a particular utility and argues that any assessment of patentability
must take into account his combination as such. Further, he adds that the
inward unloading bucket, especially the conveyor extending into it, is a
feature wfiich distinguishes from the invention disclosed in Cox. We find
that the applicant's arrangement utilizing an inwardly discharging bucket
wheel and C-shaped conveyor mounted on a floating C-shaped support frame
represents a patentable advance over the cited art.
Having concluded that the applicant has a patentable combination we would
like to make the following comments with respect to claim 1. This claim
uses the term "floatingly" to describe the wheel mounting. We do not think
that this term accurately describes the manner in which the wheel is attached
to the C frame member. It would appear that the wheel is mounted on a
"floating" support frame. Further, the applicant argues that his C-shaped frame
carrying a C-shaped conveyor extending into the unloading bucket wheel distin-
guishes it from the prior art. This feature is not recited in the claim and,
since it is a distinguishing feature the Board is of the opinion that it
should appear in the broad claim.
In summary, we recommend that the decision in the Final Action to reject
the application on the basis of the art of record be withdrawn.
A, McDonough M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Chairman Assistant Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent Appeal Board.
Accordingly, I withdraw the Final Action and remand the application to the
Examiner.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 29th. day of August, 1984
Agent for Applicant
Ridout & Maybee,
101 Richmond St. W.
Toronto, Ontario,
M5H 2J7