BEMIS COMPANY, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 21, 20212020002799 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/120,946 08/23/2016 Chris S. Mussell 20878-US 5000 30482 7590 04/21/2021 AMCOR FLEXIBLES NORTH AMERICA, INC. Office of Intellectual Property Counsel P.O. Box 669 Neenah, WI 54957 EXAMINER POWERS, LAURA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2021 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): legal@amcor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRIS S. MUSSELL and NATHAN T. MOCADLO Appeal 2020-002799 Application 15/120,946 Technology Center 1700 Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 14–20. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 12–14.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application 15/120,946 filed Aug. 23, 2016; the Final Office Action dated Apr. 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated July 2, 2019 (“Adv. Act.); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 27, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Feb. 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bemis Company, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Claims 7–13 were cancelled in Appellant’s Oct. 5, 2018 Response to Office Action. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002799 Application 15/120,946 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention relates to packaging materials having purported improved release properties for packaging foods. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 4. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A packaging web having a first side edge and an opposing second side edge, a third side edge and opposing fourth side edge, comprising: a. an inner surface comprising a sealing border positioned adjacent to the first, second, third and fourth side edges and comprising a cold-seal adhesive coating; and b. a product-release coating applied in an area circumscribed by the sealing border, wherein the product- release coating comprises a compound of formula: . REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Appeal 2020-002799 Application 15/120,946 3 Name Reference Date Clayton US 4,348,455 Sept. 7, 1982 Zhang US 5,616,400 Apr. 1, 1997 Muschelewicz et al. (“Muschelewicz”) US 5,965,226 Oct. 12, 1999 Krampe et al. (“Krampe”) US 6,099,682 Aug. 8, 2000 Kasturi et al. (“Kasturi”) US 6,433,053 B1 Aug. 13, 2002 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: A. Claims 1–4, 14, 16, and 18–20 over Krampe in view of Clayton; B. Claims 5 and 6 over Krampe in view of Clayton and Kasturi; C. Claim 15 over Krampe in view of Clayton and Zhang; D. Claim 17 over Krampe in view of Clayton and Muschelewicz. Ans. 3–11. OPINION Appellant argues the claims as a group, stating that the only issue on appeal is the proper interpretation of the claim term “circumscribe.” Appeal Br. 5. We select claim 1, the sole independent claim, as representative of the group. Claims 2–6 and 14–20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a product-release coating applied in an area circumscribed by the sealing border.” The Examiner finds that claim 1 Appeal 2020-002799 Application 15/120,946 4 requires that the product-release coating is present in an area that is circumscribed by the sealing border. Ans. 13. Of relevance to our decision, the Examiner also finds that the inclusion of “circumscribed” in claim 1 does not prevent the product release coating from additionally being present in the sealing border area, i.e., overlapping, with the cold-seal adhesive. Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 13. As the Examiner explains: “the claims do not require or recite that the product release coating is limited to only being applied in an area circumscribed by the sealing border.” Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously interprets the claim term “circumscribe.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that the ordinary and customary meaning of “circumscribe” is “to draw a line around” or “to surround by or as if by a boundary.” Id. Appellant’s argument for patentability is unpersuasive at least because the Examiner does not give an interpretation of “circumscribe” that is contrary to Appellant’s. See generally Final Act., Ans. The Examiner’s position is that claim 1 is not limited such that the product-release coating is applied within the area bounded by the sealing border, but nowhere else. See Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 14. The Examiner’s position is entirely consistent with the use of the open transitional term “comprising,” which permits elements in addition to those specified to be included in the composition of the claim. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is well- established that ‘[c]omprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.’ Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).”). In the instant case, Appellant’s use of “comprising” and the lack of any language limiting Appeal 2020-002799 Application 15/120,946 5 the application of the product-release coating to only an area circumscribed by the sealing border encompasses a packing web with the product-release coating applied in other locations as well. For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Krampe in view of Clayton. We sustain the rejections of claims 2–6 and 14–20 for the same reasons as given in relation to claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 14–20 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 14, 16, 18– 20 103 Krampe, Clayton 1–4, 14, 16, 18–20 5, 6 103 Krampe, Clayton, Kasturi 5, 6 15 103 Krampe, Clayton, Zhang 15 17 103 Krampe, Clayton, Muschelewicz 17 Overall Outcome 1–6, 14–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation