Ex Parte Baig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 2011

11267125 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2011)

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.
11/267,125 11/04/2005 Mirza A. Baig DPC-48213 1273
89462 7590 07/15/2011
Pearne & Gordon LLP
1801 East Ninth Street
Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
WATKINS III, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MIRZA A. BAIG
________________

Appeal 2010-005891
Application 11/267,125
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 20 as unpatentable over
Frappart (US 6,334,280 B1, issued Jan. 1, 2002) in view of Englert (US
2004/0231916 A1, pub. Nov. 25, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-005891
Application 11/267,125
 
 
2
 
Appellant claims a gypsum-based acoustical board having a set gypsum core
disposed between two substantially parallel cover sheets comprising "a multiplicity
of substantially clear sound-absorbing perforations extending through a cover sheet
and into but not through the set gypsum core" (claim 1). In a narrower
embodiment, the acoustical board is further defined by the claim limitation
"wherein the face paper [sic, cover sheet] has a pattern that creates a visual
appearance of a texture when viewed from a distance" (claim 7). The pattern may
be a photographic image (claim 20).
Representative claims 1, 7, and 20 read as follows:
1. A gypsum-based acoustical board having a set gypsum core disposed
between two substantially parallel cover sheets comprising:

a set gypsum core made from a core formulation having about 75% to about
90% by weight stucco based on the total weight of the core formulation, about 0 to
about 15% by weight perlite based on the total weight of the core formulation,
about 2% to about 12% by weight paper fiber based on the total weight of the core
formulation, and about 0.5% to about 5% by weight starch based on the total
weight of the core formulation; and

a multiplicity of substantially clear sound-absorbing perforations extending
through a cover sheet and into but not through the set gypsum core.

7. The acoustical board of claim 1, wherein the face paper has a pattern that
creates a visual appearance of a texture when viewed from a distance.

20. The acoustical board of claim 7 in which the pattern is a photographic
image.

Concerning the rejection on appeal, Appellant groups claims 1-5 and 8-15
together and separately addresses dependent claims 7 and 20 (Br. 4-7). As a
Appeal 2010-005891
Application 11/267,125
 
 
3
 
consequence, our disposition of this appeal will focus on representative claims 1, 7,
and 20 only.
We affirm the above rejection for the reasons stated by the Examiner in the
Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis and completeness.
Regarding claim 1, Appellant's sole argument is that the Examiner has erred
in finding that Frappart's indentations satisfy the claim limitation "perforations
extending through a cover sheet and into but not through the set gypsum core" (Br.
6).
As correctly explained by the Examiner, this argument is unpersuasive
because claim 10 of Frappart explicitly discloses "indentations extending through
said liner and terminating in said cementitious material" (emphasis added) (Ans.
4). Significantly, Appellant does not dispute this explanation in the record before
us (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). Moreover, the Examiner's explanation is
reinforced by Figure 1 of Frappart which depicts an indentation (i.e., at 28')
extending into plasterboard (i.e., gypsum core) 22.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Appellant describes the requirements of these
claims and the teachings of Englert (Br. 7).
However, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that claim 7
"only calls for a pattern that creates the appearance of texture from a distance [and
that] [a]n actual pattern of fissures on a surface to provide a decorative texture
would also have the appearance of a decorative texture" (Ans. para. bridging 5-6).
In light of this unchallenged finding, the texture requirement of claim 7 fails to
distinguish over the texture created by the fissure-like indentations of Frappart
(e.g., see A of Fig. 3) or the texture created by the elongated fissures disclosed in
Englert (see para. [0005]). Likewise, Appellant's comments regarding claim 20
fail to contest with any reasonable specificity the Examiner's findings and
Appeal 2010-005891
Application 11/267,125
 
 
4
 
conclusion of obviousness with respect to this claim subject matter (Ans. para.
bridging 5-6).
Under these circumstances, Appellant has failed to reveal any error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 20.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl