Ex Parte Arterburn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2006

10421683 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RUSSELL DONOVAN ARTERBURN
____________

Appeal 2006-2168
Application 10/421,683
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: August 31, 2006
____________

Before WARREN, WALTZ, and GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent
Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection
mailed August 20, 2004. Claims 25-32, 34-56, and 93-101 are pending and
on appeal. Claims 1-24, 33, 57-92, and 102-107 have been cancelled.
Claim 25 is illustrative of the subject matter now on appeal and is
reproduced below:
25. A fiber forming bushing for making fibers from a molten material, said
bushing comprising at least one sidewall, a tip plate or orifice plate through
which the molten material flows to form the fibers, and a screen having a
plurality of holes therethrough and mounted on an interior of the bushing
Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683

2
and spaced above a top of the tip plate or orifice plate, said screen being
attached to said at least one sidewall, the improvement comprising that said
screen has a generally central portion and a peripheral portion surrounding
said central portion and the holes in said screen are either located, sized or
located and sized to produce a low flow rate of molten material in the
generally central portion of the screen and a medium flow rate in a
peripheral portion of the screen surrounding said generally central portion.

Ground of Rejection
The sole ground of rejection of claims 25-32, 34-56, and 93-101 is under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Background
The present application, filed April 23, 2003, is a continuation of U.S.
Application 08/929,836, filed September 15, 1997. An appeal was filed in the ‘836
Application from the final rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and §§ 102(b) and 103. Appeal No. 2000-0035. On February 20, 2003,
a decision was mailed in Appeal No. 2000-0035 in which we reversed the
Examiner’s rejections and entered a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b). A request for
continued examination was filed on November 13, 2003. A second appeal was
filed in the ‘836 application in July, 2004. Appeal No. 2006-0192. On June 29,
2006, a decision was mailed in Appeal No. 2006-0192, in which the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was reversed as to claims 2-4, 8-15, 21,
22, and 24 and affirmed as to claim 23.1 As noted by Appellant, the issues
presented in the present appeal are similar to the issues in Appeal No. 2006-0192.

1 Claim 23 was rejected because of an error in punctuation. In our decision, we stated that
Appellant should be given leave to amend claim 23 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c).

Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683

3
Discussion
The invention is directed to an improved bushing for making fibers from a
molten material. According to Appellant, when excessively hot material such as
glass contacts a mid or center portion of a conventional bushing screen, it flows too
rapidly through the center portion and down to the tip plate and nozzles. The glass
will break if it is too hot as it exits the ends of the nozzles, causing a costly
interruption in the fiberizing process. The present invention is said to reduce the
occurrence of this problem through the use of a bushing screen having a
significantly reduced hole area per unit of screen area in a generally mid or central
portion of the bushing screen and a higher hole area per unit of screen area in the
surrounding peripheral portion of the screen.
In Appeal No. 2006-0192, the Examiner rejected all of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite due to the terms "end portion" and
“mid or central portion.” In the present application, the Examiner uses essentially
the same reasoning in rejecting claims 25-32, 34-56, and 93-101 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite because of the term "portion", as used with
"generally central" and "peripheral." According to the Examiner, there is nothing
in the specification, drawings, prior art or prosecution history which gives any
indication as to what constitutes the "generally central portion" and "peripheral
portion.” The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot
determine the bounds of the claims and, therefore, cannot determine whether a
somewhat similar screen has a "generally central portion" and "peripheral portion"
which would infringe on the present claims.
Appellant, in turn, traverses the rejection for reasons similar to those set
forth in Appeal No. 2006-0192. In particular, Appellant argues that the
Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683

4
Specification as a whole (particularly pages 15 and 16 and Figures 7 and 8)
provides ample description of these terms such that one of ordinary skill in the
bushing art would understand the scope of the claimed invention. According to
Appellant, the term "portion" as used in the specification refers to parts of the area
of the screens, and it is clearly taught that these areas will vary with the size of the
bushing and screen, as well as the particular condition being addressed, i.e., size of
the bushings, area, number of tips, etc., will vary based on the product being
manufactured. Appellant maintains that the Specification shows the "peripheral
portion" as a portion that surrounds the "generally central portion," the term
"generally” indicating that the central portion may be non-symmetrical on the
center of the screen.
In Appeal No. 2006-0192, we determined that one of ordinary skill in the art
in reading Appellant’s application would have understood the term "end portions”
as defining areas of the screen proximate each end of the bushing and the term
“mid or central portion” as an area of the screen located between the “end
portions.” Likewise, in the present application, we find that the corresponding
claim terms "generally central portion" and "peripheral portion" would appraise
one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the appealed claims. We note, for
example, that the meaning of these terms is readily apparent from the description
in connection with Figure 8 of “a low flow central portion 70 that is not
symmetrically located in the center of the screen 68, but is offset” and “a medium
flow portion 72 of the screen [which] surrounds the low flow center portion
70,”Specification 16. Moreover, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that the portions are not limited to the embodiments shown in
the drawings, but may be adjusted using the guidelines set forth in the
Appeal No. 2006-2168
Application No. 10/421,683

5
specification. See, e.g., Specification 16 (“Since the size of the furnace, the width
of the channel and legs, the design of the entrance to the legs, the exit temperature
of the molten material, the pull rate on the furnace and many other factors affect
where the optimum location of the low flow portion of the screen should be located
for optimum performance, some experimentation using the above disclosure as a
guide is necessary for optimization.”)
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish that the claims
are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The rejection is reversed.

REVERSED
sld

JOHNS MANVILLE
10100 WEST UTE AVENUE
LITTLETON, CO 80127