Ex Parte Ardila

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

13725817 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
13/725,817 12/21/2012 Jorge Millan Ardila 2228-P11666US 1018
24247 7590 12/23/2016
TRASKBRITT, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
EXAMINER
LORENZI, MARC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
U S PTOMail @ traskbritt .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORGE MILLAN ARDILA
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
12, 16—24, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed January 7, 2015
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 20, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed May 7, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
July 6, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant indicates that Floral Packaging IP Holdings, LLC is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
The claims are directed to a system for removing ink from films.
Claim 12, reproduced below with disputed language highlighted, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A system for removing ink from a film, the system
comprising:
at least one roller that removes the film from a first roll
of film and feeds the film vertically upward into the system;
at least one nozzle that applies a cleaning composition to
the first side of the film removed from the roll and vertically fed
into the system;
a first member comprising microfiber cloth having a
plurality of parallel channels between adjacent rows of fibers
extending in a direction parallel to a direction of travel of the
film that distributes the cleaning composition over a width of
the first side of the film-,
at least one roller that directs the film with the cleaning
composition thereon vertically downward from the first
member comprising microfiber cloth to at least one additional
member comprising cloth, the at least one additional member
comprising cloth having a surface adjacent to and oriented in a
direction parallel to the direction of the film that together with
the cleaning composition dissociates the ink from the first side
of the film; and
a blade that separates the cleaning composition and the
dissociated ink from the first side of the film after the film
passes the first member comprising microfiber cloth and the at
least one additional member comprising cloth.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Stanka
Yoshida et al.
(“Yoshida”)
Kretschmer et al.
(“Kretschmer”)
Rye et al. (“Rye”)
Pike
US 5,289,774
US 5,621,939
US 2008/0210256 Al
US 7,592,398 B1
EP 1 314 808 B1
Mar. 1, 1994
Apr. 22, 1997
Sept. 4, 2008
Sept. 22, 2009
Jan. 4, 2006
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious as
follows: claims 12, 16—19, 21—24, and 26 over Kretschmer in view of
Yoshida, Stanka, and Pike; and claim 20 over Kretschmer in view of
Yoshida, Stanka, Pike, and Rye. Final Act. 7 and 14.
OPINION
Appellant argues for patentability of claims 12, 16—19, 23, and 24 as a
group, and argues that the rejection of claims 21, 22, and 26 should be
reversed “for substantially the same reasons” as provided for patentability of
claim 12. App. Br. 12 and 16. We select claim 12 as representative of the
group. Appellant separately argues for patentability of claim 20, and we
address claim 20 separately below.
Rejection of claim 12
The Examiner uses Kretschmer as the primary reference against claim
12, and acknowledges that Kretschmer does not teach several claim
elements. Final Act. 7. The Examiner turns to various references for
different limitations. Id. at 8—10.
3
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
The parties’ positions on the limitation “a first member comprising
micro fiber cloth having a plurality of parallel channels between adjacent
rows of fibers extending in a direction parallel to a direction of travel of the
film that distributes the cleaning composition over a width of the first side of
the film” is dispositive in this appeal. See App. Br. 22 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner contends that, although Kretschmer does not teach the
recited cloth members, Stanka teaches a cloth belt that would meet the first
member limitation, as it applies cleaning liquid across the surface of a sheet
material. Final Act. 8. Yoshida is also said to teach cloth belts as an
alternative to a pressurized nozzle. Id. The Examiner acknowledges that
Stanka’s cloth belt does not teach the cloth characteristics in claim 12, and
turns to Pike for this disclosure. Id. at 9. According to the Examiner, Pike
teaches a split meltblown fiber web highly suitable as a wiper cloth. Id. The
Examiner finds that Pike’s teaching of “dissociable fibers” involves some
form of spacing between the fibers in order for the fibers to be separable,
and the boundary between dissociated fibers can be viewed as the channels
required in claim 12. Id. The Examiner further finds that, because Pike’s
filaments are deposited onto a belt, the fibers extend in a longitudinal
direction of the belt. Id. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Kretschmer’s device in view of Stanka and Yoshida,
and with Pike’s meltblown fiber web as the cloth belt of Stanka. Id.
Appellant argues that there is no objective reason to modify
Kretschmer in view of the secondary references because Kretschmer teaches
a brushless, non-contact cleaning device and secondary references Stanka
and Yoshida include cloths or blades that will be in contact with the film
4
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
surface. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that Kretschmer
teaches away from use of brushes or other mechanical devices that
mechanically contact the material to be cleaned. App. Br. 14.
Although Kretschmer discloses that it is “[ejssential [ ] that the entire
cleaning device [ ] is brushless,” the reference also discloses that the use of
rotary cleaning brushes is known and conventional in the state-of-the-art.
Kretschmer 149. Teaching away requires more than the mere expression of
a general preference. Galderma Labs., L.P., v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731,
738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where, as here, the prior art merely discloses more
than one alternative, there is no teaching away from these alternatives
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Review of Appellant’s arguments against Kretschmer does not
support discarding it as a primary reference in the Examiner’s rejection.
On the other hand, the Examiner’s use of Pike to teach the microfiber
cloth of the first member as claimed is unpersuasive. See Final Act. 9; Ans.
4. Pike teaches “conjugate fiber[s],” i.e., fibers that comprise at least two
incompatible polymer components that are arranged in distinct segments
across the cross-section of the fiber along the fiber length. Pike | 8. The
Examiner contends that, “because the fibers ... of Pike []. . . are split after
the deposition by spray apparatus 38 (see Pike’s Figure 7), [the] Examiner
believes the split will result in spacing/channels between adjacent rows of
fibers of what once constituted the filaments 24. These channels/spacings
are formed along the sides of the fibers.” Ans. 4. Figure 7 of Pike is
reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
Figure 7 illustrates an exemplary superfine split microfiber web
production process for the invention disclosed in Pike. Pike 111.
According to Pike, the process line (10) of Figure 7 includes “a pair of
extruders 12a and 12b for separately melt-processing two incompatible
component polymers.” Id. 129. The polymers are melt-processed in the
extruders and then fed to, for example, a side-by-side die head 14 with a
pattern of openings arranged to create flow paths for directing polymer
extrudates through the die 14 into die tip openings or orifices 16. Id. Each
of the openings 16 receives predetermined amounts of the two extrudates in
a side-by-side configuration, forming a side-by-side filament 24. As the
extrudates exit the die openings 16 to form filaments 24, the high-pressure
fluid supplied to die 14 via pipes 18 and 20 attenuates and carries the
filaments 24 onto a moving foraminous belt 30. Id. The attenuated
filaments or fibers 24, which are not fully quenched and still tacky, are
randomly deposited to form an autogenously bonded nonwoven web 32. Id.
The random deposition taught in Pike of extruded fibers conveys that
Pike does not teach a “plurality of parallel channels between adjacent rows
of fiber extending in a direction parallel to a direction of travel of the film,”
6
Appeal 2015-006688
Application 13/725,817
as required by claim 12. We agree with Appellant that there is no teaching
in Pike or other cited references that parallel channels between adjacent rows
of fibers are oriented as recited in claim 12. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner does not argue that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have found it obvious to re-orient the fibers of Pike
or explain how this could be accomplished.
For the reasons above, the Examiner does not support a prima facie
case of obviousness of claim 12 over the cited references and we do not
sustain the rejection. For these same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 16—19, 21—24, and 26.
Rejection of claim 20
The Examiner rejects claim 20 over the references above and Rye.
Final Act. 15. We find that Rye does not disclose the deficiencies in the
other cited references. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 16—24,
and 26 is reversed.
REVERSED
7