Ex Parte Bosman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201813001523 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) 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. 13/001,523 03/11/2011 Rigobert Bosman BHD-4662-1754 2166 23117 7590 01/17/2018 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER NEW AY, BLAINE GIRMA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3788 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2018 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RIGOBERT BOSMAN and ROELOF MARISSEN1 2 3 Appeal 2017-000202 Application 13/001,523 Technology Center 3700 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 16—22. App. Br. I.2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants list DSM IP Assets, BV as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2, filed February 8, 2016 (“App. Br.”). 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed September 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 24, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed August 24, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appellants assert that claims 1—10, 17, and 21—23 stand rejected over Kolmes (App. Br. 5), but we understand the recitation of claim 23 to be a typographical error and that Appellants intended to recite claim 22. Appeal 2017-000202 Application 13/001,523 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the present invention as being directed to reinforcing liners for fluid-containment pressure vessels. Spec. 1. The reinforcing liners are composed of two load-bearing yams. Id. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with modified formatting, is illustrative of the appealed claims: 1. A reinforcing member comprising first and second types of load-bearing yams, wherein the first type of load-bearing yams ha[s] a creep rate Si and [is] comprised of a first type of continuous filaments, and wherein the second type of load-bearing yams ha[s] a creep rate 82 and [is] comprised of a second type of continuous filaments, and wherein the creep rate 82 of the second type of load- bearing yams is at least 10 times higher than the creep rate 81 of the first type of load-bearing yams to thereby satisfy a relationship: 82 > 10 x 81 wherein the creep rates 81 and 82 are measured on the first and second types of load-bearing yams, respectively, at a temperature of 20°C and under an applied load of 600 MPa. Claims 1—10, 16, 17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or alternatively 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kolmes (US 7,178,323 B2; issued Feb. 20, 2007). Final Act. 2-5. Claims 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kolmes in view of Radlinger (US 6,508,276 B2; issued Jan. 21, 2003). Final Act. 5—7. 2 Appeal 2017-000202 Application 13/001,523 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Kolmes discloses composite yams prepared from two or more yams. Ans. 5 (citing Kolmes col. 4,11. 35—39). The Examiner further finds that Kolmes’s disclosed composite yams either anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention because Kolmes discloses that the composite yams can be made from materials sold under the trademarks DYNEEMA® and TECHNORA®—the same materials as used in the instant invention. Id. (citing Kolmes col 7,11. 37-49). Appellants argue inter alia that whereas there invention is directed to composite yams that reinforce a stmctural article such as a pressure vessel, Kolmes is concerned with cut-resistant yams for weaving or knitting garments. App. Br. 5. Appellants further argue that Kolmes discloses multi fiber yams that comprise a metallic strand that is air interlaced with a non- metallic strand. Id. at 6 (citing Kolmes col. 7,11. 26—36). Appellants contend that Kolmes provides no example of using the combination of TECHNORA® and DYNEEMA®. Id. at 7. ANALYSIS Appellants’ Specification provides an example of their invention where TECHNORA® is used for the first type yam and DYNEEMA® is used for the second type yam. Spec. 15—16. In contrast, Kolmes’s invention is 3 Appeal 2017-000202 Application 13/001,523 directed to a combined yam that forms a single air-tacked strand 10 and which comprises i) at least one metallic strand 12; and ii) a non-metallic strand 14. Kolmes col. 3,11. 12—17; col. 5,1. 60—col. 6,1. 4. The passage of Kolmes cited by the Examiner, indicates that either DYNEEMA® or TECHNORA® may be employed for the non-metallic strand 14—not that both may be employed together within a single embodiment. Kolmes col. 7, 11. 37-49, cited in Ans. 5. To be sure, Kolmes states that instead of using only a single non- metallic strand 14, a large number of non-metallic strands 14 can be interlaced with each other to surround the metallic strand 12. Kolmes col. 6, 11. 4—11. But this passage does not indicate that the disclosed large number of non-metallic strands 14 can be composed of different types of non- metallic strands, much less that the non-metallic strands may be composed specifically of the combination of DYNEEMA® and TECHNORA® materials. Id. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that Kolmes discloses a multi-fiber yam that is composed of the same materials as Appellants’ yam. As such, the Examiner has not established that Kolmes’s multi-fiber yam inherently possesses the properties recited in independent claim 1. Nor has the Examiner established, in the alternative, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the specific combination of DYNEEMA® and TECHNORA® materials. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s alternative anticipation and obviousness rejections of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of that claim, 4 Appeal 2017-000202 Application 13/001,523 as well as claims 2—10, 16, 17, 21, and 22, which depend from or otherwise include all of the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 18—20, the Examiner does not rely on Radlinger to cure the deficiency of the alternative rejections explained above. Final Act. 6—7. Accordingly, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 18—20 over Kolmes and Radlinger. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10 and 16—22 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation