Ex Parte Fechter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2013

10674275 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2013)

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Claims 10-16, 20, and 21 are withdrawn from consideration.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