Ex Parte Eleazer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

11518964 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/518,964 09/11/2006 Howell B. Eleazer 5964A 6003
25280 7590 09/19/2012
Legal Department (M-495)
P.O. Box 1926
Spartanburg, SC 29304
EXAMINER
MATZEK, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOWELL B. ELEAZER, CHARLES W. PRESTRIDGE,
HEATHER J. HAYES, and KARL M. GRUENBERG
____________

Appeal 2011-009026
Application 11/518,964
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11-13, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, 127, 30, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 6,127,293 issued
October 3, 2000) in view of Hino (JP 2000-45147A, published February 15,
2000; as translated). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set out
in the Claims Appendix of the Brief. None of the claims are argued
separately by Appellants.
Appeal 2011-009026
Application 11/518,964

2

We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer1. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants’ main arguments that one would not have made the
proposed modification to Kimura to use reinforcement fibers based on Hino
(Br. 6), and even if the references were combined, it would not result in the
claimed structure (Id.) are unavailing. In this regard, the claimed invention
merely applies the well-known technique as exemplified in Hino of
reinforcement fibers in woven fabric layers to yield predictable results of
improved strength in the woven fabric layers of the composite of Kimura.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007) (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). The analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the claim, for it is proper to take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. at 418.
Appellants have also not refuted the Examiner’s reasonable claim
interpretation with respect to the location of the claimed elements (Ans. 10;
no reply brief has been filed).
Appellants have also not presented any persuasive reasoning or
evidence that the use of reinforcement fibers in addition to the material (e.g.,
Kraft paper) of Kimura would not have been within the level of skill in the
art (Br. generally).

1 No Reply Brief has been filed.
Appeal 2011-009026
Application 11/518,964

3
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims, and we sustain the § 103 rejection of all
the claims on appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

sld