14222977 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2017)

Ex Parte Bazinski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 2017

14222977 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2017)

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. 14/222,977 03/24/2014 Steve Norman Bazinski 83419454(65080-1153) 2858 113140 7590 09/18/2017 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC 300 River Place Suite 1650 Detroit, MI 48207 EXAMINER SAWDON, ALICIA JANE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1781 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2017 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): docket @ b2iplaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVE NORMAN BAZINSKI and IAN MCLAUGHLIN Appeal 2017-001021 Application 14/222,977 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 5—12, and 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Final Office Action dated December 3, 2015 (Final), the Appeal Brief dated April 7, 2016 (Appeal Br.), and the Examiner’s Answer dated August 29, 2016 (Ans.). 2 Appellant is Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC., and Ford Motor Company is, according to the Brief, the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2017-001021 Application 14/222,977 § 103 as obvious over Saucedo3 in view of Johansson4. The Examiner adds further prior art references to reject claims 4 and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The claims are directed to a camouflage sheet (see, e.g., claim 1), and a test product that has at least one camouflage sheet affixed thereto (see, e.g., claim 10). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A camouflage sheet, comprising: a specular reflector layer configured to reflect light away from an underlying object, wherein the sheet has formed thereon a plurality of three- dimensional shapes. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 11. OPINION All of the claims require “a specular reflector layer configured to reflect light away from an underlying object.” See, e.g., claims 1 and 10. The Examiner acknowledges that Saucedo does not disclose a specular reflective layer configured to reflect light away from an underlying object and looks to Johansson for a teaching of such a layer. Final 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds Johansson teaches “[a] reflector layer comprising a reflecting metal layer covered on both sides with a plastic material (column 3, line 67 to column 4, line 5).” Id. However, the “reflecting metal layer covered on both sides with a camouflage-coloured 3 US 2012/0118133 Al, published May 17, 2012 4 US 4,560,595, issued December 24, 1985 2 Appeal 2017-001021 Application 14/222,977 plastic material” disclosed by Johansson (col. 3,1. 67—col. 4,1. 5) is not “a specular reflector layer configured to reflect light away from an underlying object” as required by the claims. As pointed out by Appellant, Johansson teaches exactly the opposite. Appeal Br. 6. Johansson teaches that the plastic-covered reflecting metal layer of Johansson is preferably “provided with matte surfaces to avoid specular reflection.” Johansson, col. 4,11. 62— 65 (emphasis added). The Examiner does not disagree with Appellant’s contention that the surface is matte. Ans. 8. Rather, the Examiner finds that the polymer- coated surface of Johansson would still behave as a specular layer because “any flat layer, unless it is pure black will reflect light away from the underlying object,” and, “[consequently, even a layer with a matte finish, with reduced specular reflectivity as disclosed by Johansson, would behave as a specular layer configured to reflect light away from the underlying object as claimed.” Ans. 9. The Examiner’s reasoning conflates diffuse reflectivity with specular reflectivity. Matte surfaces reflect light diffusely and, by definition, do not reflect light specularly. This is because specular reflection is defined as: Optics: Reflection from a smooth surface. Also, mirror reflection, regular reflection. Physics: Any reflection in which the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. Specular reflection. (1992). In C. G. Morris (Ed.), Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science & Technology. Retrieved from 3 Appeal 2017-001021 Application 14/222,977 http:// search, credoreference. com/ content/entry/apdst/ specular_reflection/ 0?i nstitutionId=743 (accessed Sept. 5, 2017) (emphasis added). The Examiner does not provide any alternative basis to support the rejection. Nor is the deficiency remedied by the Examiner’s reliance on the secondary references used to reject claims 4 and 13. Thus, Appellant has identified a reversible error that applies to all the rejections. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 4