Ex Parte Crook et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2012

11509197 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

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.
11/509,197 08/23/2006 Robert Crook VOI0425.US 4096
41863 7590 08/15/2012
TAYLOR IP, P.C.
P.O. Box 560
142. S Main Street
Avilla, IN 46710
EXAMINER
MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT CROOK and WILLIAM DANIEL ALDRICH
____________

Appeal 2010-008355
Application 11/509,197
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008355
Application 11/509,197

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Crook and William Daniel Aldrich (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
The invention is a process belt having an improved seam. Spec. 1,
para. [0004]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A process belt comprising:
a woven base fabric with a seam loop area;
a barrier layer on an upper surface of the base
fabric;
a fibrous batt layer one of on the barrier layer and
embedding the barrier layer, the fibrous batt layer being needled
through the barrier layer and into the base fabric forming a
composite structure; and
an additional material added to the fibrous batt
layer, said additional material being one of a resin coating and a
deposition of solid particles, the barrier layer being placed over
a side of the seam loop area to which the additional material
was added to the batt layer, wherein the barrier layer protects
the seam loop area from significant contamination by at least
one of said additional material and fibers of said fibrous batt
layer.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Crook (US 6,712,940 B2, iss. Mar. 30, 2004).

Appeal 2010-008355
Application 11/509,197

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds:
Crook discloses a belt fabric that can be
used in any belt process of papermaking.
“FIG. 3 shows a cross-section in
diagrammatic form of a papermachine belt 30
according to the invention at a stage in its
manufacture immediately prior to treatment with
heat and pressure. In the manufacture of the belt, a
woven base fabric with minimal batt needled
thereto 31, which provides a support structure, has
a membrane 32 of a thermoplastic material, in
this case a partially porous thermoplastic
polyurethane elastomer membrane, laid onto its
upper surface. A fibrous batt layer 33 is placed
over the polyurethane membrane and the batt is
then needled (indicated by vertical lines 34)
through the polyurethane membrane and into the
base fabric 31.”
“In the next and final stage, after the
needling, the composite structure is subjected to
heat and pressure such as by tensioning of the
endless fabric around a heated roll. This fuses the
polyurethane membrane and causes the fused
thermoplastic polyurethane to flow out through the
fibrous batt until all but a predetermined
proportion of the batt is embedded in the
thermoplastic.”
The citations above clearly disclose the
limitations in claims 1-4. The fiber batt and
membrane forming a so-called barrier layer and
“additional material”, as claimed.
Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue
Crook . . . fail[s] to teach, disclose or
suggest an additional material added to the fibrous
batt layer, the additional material being one of a
Appeal 2010-008355
Application 11/509,197

4
resin coating and a deposition of solid particles,
the barrier layer being placed over a side of the
seam loop area to which the additional material
was added to the batt layer, wherein the barrier
layer protects the seam loop area from significant
contamination by the additional material and/or
fibers of the fibrous batt layer, as recited in claim
1.
App. Br. 14.
We agree with Appellants. To the extent the Examiner has identified
the membrane 32 as both the barrier layer and the additional material, the
Examiner’s reasoning is flawed. The Examiner cannot rely upon an
intermediate state of the belt to reject one part of the claim and then rely
upon the final state of the belt to reject another part of the claim.
Specifically, the Examiner cannot rely upon the membrane in its condition
prior to being heated to meet the requirement for a barrier layer, and then
rely upon the membrane in its condition after it has been heated to meet the
requirement for additional material, as there is no indication that some
portion of the membrane remains to constitute the barrier layer after
thermoplastic polyurethane flows out through the fibrous batt. Rather, such
heating “results in the melted polyurethane passing from the inside to the
outside surface [of the belt] through the batt.” Crook, col. 1, ll. 59-61. As
there is no clear indication that any portion of the membrane remains after
the melted polyurethane passes through the batt layer, the Examiner’s
finding that the membrane is a barrier layer is based on pure speculation.
Appeal 2010-008355
Application 11/509,197

5
To the extent the Examiner identifies the fiber batt as the barrier layer
and the membrane 32 as the additional material,1 the Examiner’s reasoning
is also flawed. First, assuming fibrous batt layer 33 as the barrier layer, the
barrier layer (fibrous batt layer 33) cannot prevent contamination of the
seam loop area by additional material (membrane 32) and/or fibers of the
fibrous batt layer (batt fibers of the woven base fabric 31) as recited in the
claims since the identified barrier layer (fibrous batt layer 33) is needled
through the membrane 32 and into the base fabric 31. Crook, col. 3, ll. 26-
31. Second, assuming minimal batt fibers of the woven base fabric 31 as the
barrier layer, the barrier layer (minimal batt fibers of the woven base fabric
31) cannot prevent contamination of the seam loop area by additional
material (membrane 32) and/or fibers of the fibrous batt layer (batt fibers of
the fibrous batt layer 33) since the identified fibers of the fibrous batt layer
(fibrous batt layer 33) are needled through the membrane 32 and into the
base fabric 31. Crook, col. 3, ll. 26-31. Moreover, the membrane 32 is
configured to flow through the fibrous batt, thereby further supporting that
fibrous batt layers 31, 33 cannot function as a claimed barrier layer. App.
Br. 13. Independent claims 1, 6 and 17 all require a barrier layer and
additional material as discussed supra. For these reasons, we cannot sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6 and 17, and claims 2-5 and 7-15
which depend therefrom.
Claim 16 requires a non-woven thermal plastic material and a barrier
layer. As discussed supra, Crook’s membrane is the thermal plastic
material. Accordingly, it cannot be fairly read as both the thermal plastic

1 “The fiber batt and membrane forming a so-called barrier layer and
‘additional material’, as claimed.” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2010-008355
Application 11/509,197

6
material and the barrier layer. In addition, fibrous batt layers 31, 33 do not
and cannot function as a barrier layer in accordance with the claims. Thus,
we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Crook is reversed.

REVERSED

mls