Ex Parte Chen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2011

10847690 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P Alexandria, 0 Box 1450 Virginia 22313- 1450
www uspto gov
31718 7590 01/31/2011
BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY LLP
APPLICATION NO.
EXAMINER
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
101847,690 05/18/2004 Sabrina Pichee Chen 03-520-B 3814
FILING DATE
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST
14th Floor
I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 3721
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
CONFIRMATION NO.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
01/31/2011 ELECTRONIC
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte SABRINA PICHEE CHEN
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
Sabrina Pichee Chen (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134
(2002) of a final rejection of claims 24-30, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).
The Appellant invented a plastic bag manufacturing device
(Specification 1 : 3-5).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 24, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added].
24. An apparatus for making a tri-fold bag roll, comprising:
a supply of polyethylene material;
[I] an extruder,
said extruder capable of forming a continuous tube of
thin film polyethylene;
[2] a tubing flattener,
said flattener capable of flattening said continuous tube
into a continuous bag web;
[3] a sealer,
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed April 18, 2007) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
August 7,2008).
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
said sealer capable of forming a series of seals in said bag
web perpendicular to a long axis of said web;
[4] a folder,
said folder capable of folding said bag web
approximately in thirds parallel to said long axis
to form a compact bag web approximately one
third the width of said continuous bag web
thereby forming a continuous C-fold bag web;
[5] a perforator,
said perforator capable of
perforating said compact bag web through six film
layers and
forming a perforation line; and
[6] a bag roller,
said bag roller capable of rolling said perforated compact
bag web into a compact roll;
[7] said folder comprises
a first and second guide bar,
said guide bars are used to direct the continuous
bag web behind an arcuate plate, and
a first and a second offset guide blade
which create a first and a second fold in the bag
web
enabling a first side portion of said bag web
and a last side portion of said bag web to be
folded over a center portion of said bag web,
forming the continuous C-fold bag web.
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Spencer US 4,328,655 May 11,1982
Conrad US 5,816,992 Oct. 6, 1998
Belias US 6,196,7 17 B 1 Mar. 6, 2001
Angless US 6,254,520 B1 Jul. 3, 2001
Claims 24-27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belias, Angless, and Spencer.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belias, Angless, Spencer and Conrad.
ISSUES
The issue of obviousness turns primarily on whether one would have
looked to Spencer for how to implement C folds in a web product such as
Belias' plastic bags web.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Belias
01. Belias is directed to a way of forming plastic handle bags.
Belias 1:9-10; 57-58.
02. Belias shows plastic bags folded into a C-fold. Belias Fig 2c.
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
Angless
03. Angless is directed to an improved folding method in the
manufacture of plastic bags. Angless 6-7; 46-47.
Spencer
04. Spencer is directed to a method of manufacturing a packaged
web product. Spencer 1 :7-8.
05. Spencer describes how web products, such as paper products,
have been given C folds for a long time in the Background
section. Spencer 1: 12- 16. One manner of implementation is
portrayed in Spencer Fig. 8. Spencer 2:s- 13.
ANALYSIS
Claims 24-27 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Belias, Angless, and Spencer.
The Examiner found that Belias generally described the claim 24
limitations at a high level and applied Spencer to show some of Belias'
likely implementation details. Although Belias described forming C-folds
(folding the product like the letter C), see FF 02, Belias did not describe
implementation details and the Examiner applied Spencer for that. Ans. 3-4.
See FF 05.
We are not persuaded by the argument that Spencer is non-analogous art
(Appeal Br. 6-7) because Spencer is directed to a method of manufacturing a
generalized packaged web product. FF 04. Sheets of extruded and flattened
plastic bags as in Belias are web products as a continuous flat stream of
plastic or paper form what is referred to as a web in industry. Further, the
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
Examiner only applied Spencer for how one of ordinary skill would
implement C-folds, whose functionality is generally described by Belias.
One of ordinary skill would look to any reference describing how to produce
such colds with web material for implementation details, as the structural
requirements are similar among any web material.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by the arguments that Spencer fails to
describe the limitations that Angless and Belias were applied for.
Finally, we agree with the Examiner at Ans. 7-8 that the Appellant's
arguments that Spencer uses rollers rather than bars are unpersuasive as the
claim does not structurally define a bar, and a roller acts as a bar with added
functionality.
Claims 28 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Belias, Angless, Spencer and Conrad.
The Appellant's reliance on the arguments in support of independent
claim 24 is equally unpersuasive to these claims.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Rejecting claims 24-27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable
over Belias, Angless, and Spencer is not in error.
Rejecting claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable
over Belias, Angless, Spencer and Conrad is not in error.
Appeal 2009-014239
Application 101847,690
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
The rejection of claims 24-27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belias, Angless, and Spencer is sustained.
The rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belias, Angless, Spencer and Conrad is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED
mev
Address
BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST
14th Floor
LOS ANGELES CA 90045