Ex Parte Fandrey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

11793837 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111793,837 09/18/2007
127226 7590 03/01/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jens Fandrey
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.
4266-0155PUS 1 6864
EXAMINER
LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS F ANDREY, ELKE EHRMANN and
KLAUS BECKER-WEIMANN
Appeal2014-003919
Application 11/793,837
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-9 and 17-19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method for sealing at least a part of an
article's surface. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. Method of sealing at least part of the surface of an article,
comprising the steps of:
(a) applying a reactive melt layer based on polyurethane,
which melt layer normally reacts by means of the moisture present
in ambient air, to at least one part of the surface of the article;
(b) smoothing the reactive melt layer; and
Appeal2014-003919
Application 11/793,837
( c) preparing a combined reactive melt/coating
mater!al sealmg layer ~y applying a UV-curjng coating
material to form a coatmg layer on the reactive melt layer
the .coating layer ~eing applied and UV-cured before tfie full
curmg of the reactive melt layer.
Brack
Becker-Weimann
The References
us 4,218,294
US 2004/0250906 Al
The Rejection
Aug. 19, 1980
Dec. 16, 2004
Claims 1, 3-9 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Becker-Weimann in view of Brack.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection. We need address only claim 1, which is the
sole independent claim. That claim requires applying a coating layer to a
reactive melt layer and UV-curing the coating layer before fully curing the
reactive melt layer.
Becker-Weimann seals a veneer by applying thereto a water-free and
solvent-free atmospheric moisture-curing cold-hardening polyurethane-
based hot-melt sealing layer (i-f 8). "Coating with cold-hardening hot-melt
sealing represents a simple hot-cold reaction with subsequent cross-linking
process with the help of moisture from the air or the material, without an
ultraviolet or electron ray curing or the like being necessary" (id.). "It is
favorable to apply the cold-hardening hot-melt sealing layer under the
exclusion of air and shielding from atmospheric pressure to avoid a
premature reaction" (i-f 23). The sealing layer, after it has been applied to the
veneer but before it has cured, can be polished, preferably with a roller
sprinkled with a solvent-free, low-viscosity paraffin wax-based stripping
agent, to prevent the sealing layer from sticking to the roller and to make the
2
Appeal2014-003919
Application 11/793,837
sealing layer's surface smoother and immediately block free such that the
veneer, when rolled up, does not adhere to itself (i1i19--11, 30). "[T]he cold-
hardening hot-melt sealing layer exhibits a high UV stability, a high degree
of hardness, resistance to scratches and a very high resistance to shock"
(i-f 8).
Brack discloses "radiation curable materials, and coatings resulting
therefrom, which cure rapidly under moderate exposure [to ultraviolet light
or electron beams] to give films with a desirable combination of toughness,
flexibility and resistance to solvents and to abrasion" (col. 1, 11. 49--53;
col. 3, 11. 32-34) and "are useful as inks, release coatings, protective
varnishes or the like" (col. 1, 11. 53-54). When the coating is a release
coating it contains about 0 .1 to about 10 wt% wax which can be a paraffin
wax which, upon curing of the release coating under actinic light, is
"expelled by the increasing crosslink density of the network and form[ s] a
thin film on the surface of the coating" (col. 5, 11. 21-35). "Even a small
quantity of such material tends to migrate to the surface of the coating and
provides a release type surface with characteristics similar to those of
fluorocarbon polymers or silicones" (col. 5, 11. 35-39).
The Examiner argues that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
substituted a thin release layer of a paraffin wax stripping agent (which
inherently has release properties) on a smoothed veneer before rolling it up
in Becker-Weimann et al[.] with a release layer of a solventless fast-curing
coating composition containing paraffin wax with the expectation of
providing the coated veneer with a desired release coating having
3
Appeal2014-003919
Application 11/793,837
combination of toughness, flexibility and resistance to solvents and to
abrasion as taught by Brack" (Ans. 4--5). Regarding the Appellants'
claim 1 's requirement that the coating layer is applied to the reactive melt
layer and UV-cured before full curing of the reactive melt layer, the
Examiner finds that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
that the UV- cured concealing layer would prevent hardening of the melt
layer because the top layer is applied as a very thin layer and only its top
surface leaving the sides of PU [polyurethane] layer open" (Ans. 14) and
"[i]t is well known in the art that unless special barrier layers are used,
moisture easily penetrates through thin layers" (id.).
The Appellants challenge those findings (Reply Br. 4). Hence, we do
not accept them as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA
1964). Because the Appellants have challenged the Examiner's findings, the
Examiner must support them with evidence, and the Examiner has not done
so. The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima case of
obviousness of the Appellants' claimed method.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Becker-Weimann in view of Brack is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4