Ex Parte BelpaireDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201613061685 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/061,685 06/20/2011 Vincent Belpaire 65765T-000090/US/NP 8268 21839 7590 01/03/2017 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC POST OFFICE BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404 EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1788 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2017 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): ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINCENT BELPAIRE Appeal 2015-006349 Application 13/061,685 Technology Center 1700 Before: TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—5, 7—13, 17, 28—35, 37, and 38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In our Decision below we refer to the Specification filed March 1, 2011 (Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed July 30, 2014 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed February 3, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 8, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed June 8, 2015 (Reply Br.). 2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sika Technology AG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-006349 Application 13/061,685 STATEMENT OF CASE The claims are directed “to systems ... for providing structural reinforcement. More specifically, the disclosure is directed to structural reinforcers configured to be adhesively secured within a cavity.” Spec. 1 6. Claim 31, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 31. An assembly for reinforcing a structural member having a plurality of inner walls that together define an internal cavity, comprising: a rigid structural reinforcer member, wherein at least a portion of said structural reinforcer member generally conforms to at least one of the inner walls; and an adhesive, which is generally tacky to the touch, and which is applied at one or more locations on one or both of said reinforcer member and an inner wall prior to insertion of the reinforcer member within the cavity, to adhere the reinforcer member to the inner wall when the reinforcer member is positioned in the cavity; wherein a thickness of said adhesive prior to insertion of the reinforcer member into the cavity is the same as or greater than a distance that exists between the reinforcer member and the inner wall at the location of the adhesive subsequent to insertion of the reinforcer member into the cavity and prior to any expansion of said adhesive, such that said adhesive simultaneously contacts said reinforcer member and the inner wall upon insertion of the reinforcer member into the cavity; wherein a fluid flow path is maintained parallel to and between said carrier and said inner wall to which said carrier is adhered. Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 21. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 2 Appeal 2015-006349 Application 13/061,685 A. Claims 1—5,9,10-13,17,28—35,37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barz3 in view of Wycech.4 Final Act. 2. B. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barz in view of Wycech and further in view of Busseuil.5 Id. at 6. Appellant seeks our review of Rejections A and B. Because we reverse on the absence of an element found in independent claims 1 and 31, we focus our discussion below on claim 31 to resolve the issues on appeal. OPINION The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 9, 10-13, 17, 28—35, 37, and 38 as unpatentable over Barz in view of Wycech. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Barz teaches a reinforcing structural member and an adhesive as claimed in claims 1 and 31. Final Act. 2—3. Relevant to Appellant’s arguments below, the Examiner finds that Barz teaches the adhesive simultaneously contacts said carrier and an inner wall upon insertion of the carrier into the cavity (Column 2, line 55 to Column 4, line 10, wherein the adhesive may have a 0% expansion rate); a fluid flow path is maintained parallel to and between said carrier and said inner wall to which the carrier is adhered (Figure 5, the lower left comer of the stmcture where a gap is formed between the stmctures, #16 and 22, and the adhesive, #30) Final Act. 3. 3 Barz et al., US 6,619,727 Bl, issued September 16, 2003 (“Barz”). 4 Joseph S. Wycech, US 6,058,673, issued May 9, 2000 (“Wycech”). 5 Busseuil et al., EP 1 387 789 Bl, published September 13, 2006 (“Busseuil”). 3 Appeal 2015-006349 Application 13/061,685 Appellant argues: (1) that Barz does not teach an adhesive that “simultaneously contacts said reinforcer member and the inner wall upon insertion” and (2) that Barz does not teach “a fluid path [that] is maintained parallel to and between said carrier and said inner wall to which said carrier is adhered” as required by the claims. Appeal Br. 8 and 11. We find Appellant’s second argument persuasive of reversible error by the Examiner. In particular, Appellant urges that Figures 4 and 5, do not depict a “fluid flow path” as the Examiner suggests. Appeal Br. 11. Rather, Appellant contends that the description corresponding to Figures 4 and 5 expressly discusses a “continuous” placement of the expandable material around the gap to block passage of fluids. Id. at 11—12. The Examiner maintains that Figure 5 shows a fluid path as claimed. Ans. 9. The Examiner further explains that the description in Barz, identified by Appellant, is merely a preferred embodiment and “there are embodiments, or instances, where the sealant is not continuously around the periphery of the skeleton body.” Id. “[A]ll of the relevant teachings of the cited references must be considered in determining what they fairly teach to one having ordinary skill in the art.” In reMercier, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165 (CCPA 1975). Here the Examiner errs by interpreting Figure 5 in isolation, and without the aid of the express teachings of Barz specifically addressing that figure. Barz, with regard to Figures 4 and 5, expressly states that [i]n another preferred embodiment, the expandable material, upon expansion will serve as a sealant for blocking the passage of fluids or other elements through the cavity. Thus, in such embodiment, it is preferred that the expandable material is provided continuously about generally the entirety of the periphery of any portion of the skeleton member that does not 4 Appeal 2015-006349 Application 13/061,685 sealingly contact the automobile frame structure. FIG. 5 illustrates this by showing how skeleton member coated with an expandable material (shown in FIG. 4) is sealed in place upon activation of the material 30 (shown expanded in FIG. 5). Barz, col. 5,11. 15—25 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner’s finding of a fluid flow path in Figure 5 is in direct conflict with the written description of Barz—the only description of Figure 5—and amounts to reversible error. We therefore cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 31 (and claims depending therefrom). CONCLUSION The Examiner did reversibly err in rejecting claims 1—5, 7—13, 17, 28— 35,37, and 38 by finding that the fluid flow path, required by the instant claims, is taught by Barz. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7—13, 17, 28—35, 37, and 38 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation