Ex Parte Fechter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 4, 201310674275 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/674,275 09/29/2003 Ramona Rae Fechter 28082.119 8370 7590 02/04/2013 Paul F. Wille 2225 West Chandler Boulevard Chandler, AZ 85224 EXAMINER QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2889 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2013 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 RAMONA RAE FECHTER and MARK ROGERS ________________ Appeal 2010-005499 Application 10/674,275 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005499 Application 10/674,275 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Burrows (US 6,271,631 B1; Aug. 7, 2001). 1 Claims 10-16, 20, and 21 are withdrawn from consideration. App. Br. 1. Claims 5-7 are canceled. April 15, 2008 Amended Appeal Brief. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to the combination of a thick film, inorganic electroluminescent (EL) panel and, in particular, to the construction of an EL panel having relatively thin luminous areas. Spec. 1:3-5. The lamp is an integral part of the article. Spec. 6:7. Independent claim 1is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An injection molded article having an electroluminescent panel as a first surface of the article, said article characterized in that the panel is an integral part of the article as a result of injection molding. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 17, 2008, as Amended on April 15, 2008; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2009. Appeal 2010-005499 Application 10/674,275 3 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner finds that Burrows discloses every recited feature of representative claim 1 including a panel that is an integral part of an article. Ans. 3:14, 18-19. Appellants argue that because Burrows’ EL lamp 300 is affixed to a substrate or is on an appliance, it is not integral. Br. 3:14-19, 22-24. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Burrows discloses a panel that is an integral part of an article? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellants’ contentions, and we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings with respect to Burrows, including the Examiner’s determination that Figure 7 of Burrows discloses an electroluminescent panel 701A-701D that is an integral part of the article – the phone. Ans. 3, 6. “Integral” covers more than a unitary or a one-piece construction. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification uses the term “integral” only once (Spec. 6:7) and does not define the term. We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that he did not give any patentable weight to claim 1’s recitation of “as a result of injection molding” because the patentability of a device does not depend on its method of production – here, injection molding, contrary to Appellants’ contention. Compare Br. 4:12-13 with Ans. 3:14-18; 5:16-21. Appeal 2010-005499 Application 10/674,275 4 We therefore agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) representative claim 1; (2) claims 17 and 19 for similar reasons; and (3) claims 2-4, 8, 9, and 18 not separately argued with particularity. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17-19. CONCLUSION Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17-19. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17-19 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation