Ex Parte Carr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2014

11862532 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN S. CARR, GRAHAM ROBERTSON, and
ERIC CADY
____________________

Appeal 2012-009062
Application 11/862,532
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian S. Carr et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and
19–25. 1 Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 were withdrawn from consideration. Claim
2 is canceled.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 8, 9, 16, and 18. Ans. 4.
2 Claim 2 was canceled by Appellants in the Amendment filed January 24,
2011, in response to Final Office Action.
Appeal 2012-009062
Application 11/862,532
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a shaker screen, a method of forming
shaker screens, and a shaker screen attachment. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A shaker screen comprising:
a sealing element; and
a composite frame comprising a rigid molded section
defining an extended portion of the composite frame;
wherein the sealing element is attached to a basal
perimeter of the composite frame.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Baltzer US 6,672,460 B2 Jan. 6, 2004
Schulte
Bakula
US 2005/0103689 A1
US 2006/0163122 A1
May 19, 2005
Jul. 27, 2006

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schulte.
II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schulte and Bakula.
III. Claims 21–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schulte and Baltzer.

OPINION
Anticipation — Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 25
The Examiner finds that Schulte discloses each and every limitation of
independent claims 1 and 11. Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2012-009062
Application 11/862,532
3
Schulte discloses “a composite frame comprising a rigid molded section.”
Id. (emphasis added) (citing Schulte, ¶ 68). Appellants argue that “Schulte
is completely silent with respect to a composite frame having a rigid molded
section.” Br. 9 (emphasis added). Schulte states:
The frame 136 is rigid and is a part of the screen
assembly 134. The rigid frame may be a one piece, single,
integral member or may be composed of various members
configured together. The rigid frame may be fabricated from
steel, aluminum, plastics, composites, rubbers and/or fiberglass
and may be manufactured by various processes, such as by
injection molding, compression molding or pultrusion.
Schulte, ¶ 68 (emphasis added). Thus, Schulte clearly describes a rigid
molded frame as one of the possible embodiments for its frame. However,
claims 1 and 11 do not require a rigid molded frame, rather claims 1 and 11
require “a composite frame comprising a rigid molded section defining an
extended portion of the composite frame.” Br. 24, 25 (emphasis added.
The Examiner determines that “the claim limitations only discuss a
composite frame that comprises a rigid molded section, [as] no other
structure of the composite frame is discussed.” Ans. 8–9. Based on this
determination, the Examiner concludes that “the rigid molded section is
claimed as the composite frame and defines the composite frame as a whole
including the extended portion.” Id. at 9. The Examiner’s claim
construction is unreasonable, because it renders the claim term “section”
meaningless. Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all
terms in the claim. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). See also Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases
in claims superfluous). Thus, the Examiner errs in determining that Schulte
anticipates independent claims 1 and 11.
Appeal 2012-009062
Application 11/862,532
4
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 and 11, and claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 25, which
depend therefrom.
Obviousness – Claims 6 and 21–24
Claims 6 and 21–24 stand rejected based on the combined teachings
of Schulte and Bakula or Schulte and Baltzer. The Examiner relys on
Schulte to meet the claim limitation requiring “a composite frame having a
rigid molded section defining an extended portion of the composite frame,”
as set forth in claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends), claim 11 (from which
claims 21 and 22 depend) and 23. Neither Bakula nor Baltzer cure the
deficiency in Schulte discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 21–24.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and
19–25 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

llw