Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

13486802 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/486,802 06/01/2012
23562 7590
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
PA TENT DEPARTMENT
1900 North Pearl Street
Suite 1500
DALLAS, TX 75201
05/31/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zheng Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
24250309-002001 4658
EXAMINER
PURDY, KYLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
docket@bakermckenzie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHENG CHEN and JAMES MICHAEL McHALE 1
Appeal2017-005871
Application 13/486,802
Technology Center 1600
Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHN G. NEW, and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state that the real party-in-interest is Ideal Standard International
BVBA, a subsidiary ofLIXIL Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-005871
Application 13/486,802
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Machida et al.
(US 2003/0134107 Al, July 17, 2003) ("Machida").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to a cost-effective and practical
antimicrobial glaze system and glazing process.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 10 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
10. A method of producing a multilayer antimicrobial
ceramic glaze/enamel product, comprising the steps of:
applying a base glaze material onto a ceramic body to
form a base glaze layer of thickness between about 300 µm and
1000 µm after firing;
applying a top glaze material directly to the base glaze
layer wherein the top glaze material contains more than about
8.0 percent by weight and less than about 35.0 percent by
weight ZnO; and
2 On February 22, 2017, Appellants requested oral argument for this appeal,
which, due to an oversight, was not timely scheduled. However, because
we reverse the Examiner's rejection, we decide that a hearing is not
necessary, and we herein so notify Appellants, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.47(f).
2
Appeal2017-005871
Application 13/486,802
firing the top glaze material in a kiln to create a top glaze
layer of thickness between about 25 µm and 250 µm after
firing;
wherein relative thicknesses and concentrations of the top
glaze layer and base glaze layer are such that a total
concentration of the multilayer antimicrobial glaze/ enamel is
less than about 5.0 percent by weight ZnO;
wherein the multilayer antimicrobial ceramic glaze or
porcelain enamel product is substantially free of surface
defects.
App. Br. 20.
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Independent claims 1, 10, and 17
Issue 1
Appellants argue these independent claims together. App. Br. 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art
teaches or suggests the limitations of the claims reciting: "wherein relative
thicknesses and concentrations of the top glaze layer and base glaze layer are
such that a total concentration of the multilayer antimicrobial glaze/enamel
is less than about 5.0 percent by weight ZnO" and "wherein the multilayer
antimicrobial ceramic glaze or porcelain enamel product is substantially free
of surface defects." App. Br. 7, 9.
Analysis
Appellants argue that Machida, upon which the Examiner relies, is
silent with respect to the relative thicknesses and concentrations of the top
glaze layer and base glaze layer. App. Br. 7. Appellants point to their
Specification, which, they argue, discloses that adjustments to the relative
3
Appeal2017-005871
Application 13/486,802
thicknesses and concentrations of ZnO in the top glaze layer and base glaze
layer provide various advantages. Id. at 7-8 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 16, 17).
The claims are directed to a method of making a multilayer
ceramic/ glaze product that comprises a top glaze having "more than about
8.0 percent by weight and less than about 35.0 percent by weight ZnO",
where "the top glaze layer and base glaze layer are such that a total
concentration of the multilayer antimicrobial glaze/enamel is less than about
5.0 percent by weight ZnO."
. Appellants argue that Machida neither teaches nor suggests the recited
total concentration based on the relative thicknesses and concentrations of
the top glaze layer and base glaze layer. Id. Appellants submit an
illustration that summarizes the limitations of the claim in question, which is
reproduced below:
(~~·l