Ex Parte 7476095 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

90010648 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
90/010,648 09/28/2009 7476095 09-304L 6551
34704 7590 09/19/2012
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
EXAMINER
JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2012 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 PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG, and RAE LYNN P.
GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Piramus System Technologies AG (hereinafter “Appellant”), the real party
in interest1 of Patent 7,476,095 B2 (hereinafter the “‘095 patent”), appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and

1 See Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed July 22, 2011, (hereinafter “App. Br.”) at 3.

Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2

2
82 (Final Office Action, mailed January 19, 2011, pages 3-6). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We AFFIRM.
This reexamination proceeding arose from a third-party request for ex parte
reexamination filed by James M. Bagarazzi of the law firm of Dority & Manning,
P.A. (Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, filed September 28, 2009).
The ‘095 patent relates to an insert in a mold plate of a molding device, of,
for example, an injection-molding apparatus. The mold insert has a sensor with a
coupling that can be disconnected when the insert is removed and replaced with a
new insert (‘095 patent, col. 1, ll. 7-12 and col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 4).
Representative claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and reads as
follows (with indentations added for clarity):
1. A device for forming an object in a mold comprising
a first mold insert and a second mold insert which define a
mold cavity, wherein at least one of the first and second mold inserts
has a bore which opens to the mold cavity,
a sensor in the bore wherein a front surface of the sensor lies in
a plane of an inner cavity wall of the at least one mold inserts which
defines a portion of the mold cavity, the sensor is connected to a first
coupling part located in the at least one mold insert by means of a first
line,
wherein the first line has a resistance of at least 1012 ohms and
the first coupling part is connected to a second coupling part located
in a mold plate carrying the at least one insert, and the second
coupling part is connected by a second line to a signal evaluation unit,
wherein the second line has a resistance of at least 1012 ohms.

2 Original claims 6 and 7 of the ‘095 patent are not subject to this reexamination
(App. Br. 5; Ans. 2).
Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2

3
(Claims App’x, App. Br. 19.)
II. THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
1. Claim 1-3 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kistler
Type 1700A (Kistler Instrumente AG, “Automatic High-Insulation Coupling,
1700A5, 1700A7” (August 1988)3 (hereinafter “Kistler Type 1700A”)).
2. Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kistler Type 1700A and Frey (WO 02/082023 A1, published October 17, 2002);4
3. Claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Uhlmann (DE 39 39 728 A1, published June 6, 1991)5 and Kistler Type 6169A
(Kistler Instrumente AG, “Mold Cavity Pressure Sensor with front: Ø12mm, Type
6169A” (March 2002)6(hereinafter “Kistler Type 6169A”);

3 Although the document lacks a clear indication that the reference to “8.88” refers
to the date the document was publically available, Appellant does not appear to
contest that Kistler Type 1700A is prior art.

4 A computer-generated English language translation of Frey from the European
Patent Office was made of record in this proceeding September 28, 2009.
Appellant does not appear to contest that this computer-generated translation is
sufficient evidence of the content of the original German language document.

5 A computer-generated English language translation of Uhlmann from the
European Patent Office was made of record in this proceeding September 28,
2009. Appellant does not appear to contest that this computer-generated
translation is sufficient evidence of the content of the original German language
document.

6 Although the document lacks a clear indication that the reference to “03.02”
refers to the date the document was publically available, Appellant does not appear
to contest that Kistler Type 6169A is prior art.
Appeal
Reexam
Patent 7

4
Uhlman
A. IS
T
mold in
of at lea
couplin
skill in t

B. A
W
of fact a
F
2012-0097
ination co
,476,095 B
. Claim
n, Kistler
III.
SUES ON
he sole iss
sert of a m
st 1012 ohm
g part loca
he art ove
NALYSI
e adopt th
ppearing b
igure 4 of
60
ntrol 90/0
2
s 4 and 5
Type 6169
UHLMAN
APPEAL
ue on app
olding app
s, and a f
ted in a m
r the comb
S
e Examin
elow for e
Uhlmann
10,648
under 35 U
A, and Fr
N IN VIE

eal is: Do
aratus inc
irst coupli
old plate w
ination of
er’s findin
mphasis.
is reprodu
4
.S.C §10
ey.

W OF KI
es the evid
luding a se
ng part tha
ould have
Uhlmann
gs in the A
ced below.
3(a) as bei
STLER TY
ence supp
nsor, a fir
t is conne
been obv
and Kistle
nswer and

ng unpaten
PE 6169A
ort a concl
st line wit
cted to a s
ious to one
r Type 61
add addit

table ove

usion that
h a resistan
econd
of ordina
69A?
ional findi
r
a
ce
ry
ngs
Appeal
Reexam
Patent 7

F
illustrat
sensor 1
T
mold in
the mol
Figure 4
between
mold pl
which i
during a
connect
the plug
A
having a
T
cable, h
insert to
F
2012-0097
ination co
,476,095 B
igure 4 de
ing the arr
2 in a mol
he Examin
sert 5c tha
d plate 6a
). We agr
a sensor
ate 6a. Th
s automati
mold inse
ion betwee
46 is in m
ccordingly
n insulati
he Examin
aving a res
a connect
igure 3 of
60
ntrol 90/0
2
picts a cro
angement
ding form
er finds th
t is connec
(Ans. 5 an
ee with th
and contro
e plug con
cally conn
rt change
n plug 46
old plate
, the Exam
on resistan
er further
istance of
or (Ans. 6
page 4 for
10,648
ss-sectiona
of a pressu
5c (Uhlm
at Figure
ted to a se
d 11)(citin
e Examine
l unit via a
nection 45
ected to a
(Uhlmann
to quick c
6a and the
iner finds
ce of 1012
finds that
at least 10
).
Kistler Ty
5
l side view
re sensor
ann, ¶ [00
4 of Uhlm
cond coup
g Uhlman
r that Uhl
“plug con
includes
quick conn
, ¶ [0033])
onnected c
coupler 47
that Uhlm
Ohms, fro
Kistler Ty
12 Ohms,
pe 6169A
of a mol
11a and a
17], [0032
ann teache
ling 47 vi
n, ¶ [0021
mann teac
nection 4
a plug 46
ected cou
. Uhlman
oupler 47
is in mol
ann fails
m sensor
pe 6169A
connecting
is reprodu

ding appar
reference
], and [003
s a sensor
a a plug 46
], [0032],
hes a conn
5” and a li
of a mold
pler 47 of
n also teac
can be rev
d insert 5c
to disclose
12 to plug
teaches an
a sensor
ced below
atus
metal pres
3]).
12 within
disposed
[0033] and
ection
ne through
insert 5c,
mold plate
hes that th
ersed (i.e
).
a line,
46 (Ans. 6
insulating
within a m
:
sure
a
in

6a
e
.,
).

old
Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2

6
Figure 3 depicts a partial cross-sectional view of a molding apparatus,
including a sensor disposed in a mold insert, a cable directed through the mold
insert to a connector disposed at a mounting plate, and identification label,
indicating the sensor’s type and sensitivity (Kistler Type 6169A, p. 2, col. 1 ¶ 3 to
col. 2, last ¶ and p. 4, Figure 3 caption).
The Examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
utilize the exchangeable, insulated cable having a resistance of at least
1012 Ω, with a connector within the mold insert as suggested in
Uhlmann and as taught by Type 6169A, for the sensor configuration
of Uhlmann because Type 6169A clearly teaches the flexibility and
efficacy of such an installation that is compatible with injection
molding processes.
(Ans. 6.) The Examiner clarifies that “only the use of the line is necessary in
combination with Uhlmann” and that Kistler Type 6169A teaches “the known and
expected use of a connecting line from a sensor located in an insert in instances
wherein the sensor itself is not immediately adjacent the connector” (Ans. 11).
However, Appellant’s arguments are not germane to and do not adequately
address the Examiner’s rationale for rejecting the claims based on Uhlmann and
Kistler Type 6169A. Rather, Appellant’s arguments are based on the position that
combining the teachings of Uhlmann and Kistler Type 6169A would require that
“the entire line and connector (self-locking Fischer connector) of Type 6169A
would be incorporated into Uhlmann” (App. Br. 14). Based on this premise,
Appellant then argues that the connector of Type 6169A does not arrive at the
claimed subject matter because the connectors of Kistler Type 6169A are (a)
Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2

7
interlocking connectors7 and (b) arranged on the mold and not in the mold insert
(App. Br. 15).
Appellant presents no convincing evidence or reasoning to support its
underlying premise that one of ordinary skill in the art would have necessarily had
to substitute both the line and the connector of Kistler Type 6169A into the
apparatus of Uhlmann. We cannot agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been unable to apply the concept in Kistler Type 6169A of including a line
from a sensor in a mold insert to a connector to the sensor/connector structure of
Uhlmann to allow for flexibility in the placement of a sensor of Uhlmann away
from the plug 46. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007).
Indeed, Appellant presents no convincing evidence or reasoning that placing
the line of Kistler Type 6169A between the plug 46 and sensor 12 taught by
Uhlmann would have been beyond the skill of the ordinary artisan or that in
combining Kistler Type 6169A and Uhlmann, the skilled artisan would not have
arrived at the claimed invention in the manner articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant’s emphasis on the connectors of Kistler Type 6169A, without addressing

7 Appellant relies on translated emails obtained from “Fischer, the supplier of the
connectors in question” specifying that the connectors described in Kistler Type
1700A and Kistler Type 6169A are no longer sold, but that similarly named
connectors are “interlocking connectors” and that “[n]on interlocking connectors
have the designation SC . . . and SOV . . . by us” (see App. Br. 12 and 15 and
Evidence Appendix).
Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2

8
the plug 46/coupler 47 of Uhlmann relied upon by the Examiner, is not persuasive
that the Examiner’s proposed combination is in error.
For the same reason, Appellant’s arguments presented with respect to the
non-interlocking connector of claim 2 (App. Br. 16) are not persuasive.
Appellant presents no sufficiently distinct arguments with respect to the
remaining depending claims, including separately rejected claims 4 and 5, over
those addressed above with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 16-17).
The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness under the law.

IV. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we affirm the following rejections maintained by
the Examiner:
1. Claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Uhlmann and Kistler Type 6169A and
2. Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Uhlmann, Kistler Type 6169A, and Frey.
In affirming these rejections of all of the claims under reexamination, we
need not address the Examiner’s additional rejections based on Kistler Type
1700A.

V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding
are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

Appeal 2012-009760
Reexamination control 90/010,648
Patent 7,476,095 B2

9
AFFIRMED

FOR PATENT OWNER:
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
DORITY & MANNING PA
P.O. BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449