Ex Parte Fisher

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2013

12808804 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
12/808,804 06/17/2010 Stephen Fisher ALBSP0140WOUS 5572
23908 7590 10/23/2013
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2013 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 STEPHEN FISHER
____________

Appeal 2013-005716
Application 12/808,804
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-005716
Application 12/808,804

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 8 and 11 to 20. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. Armor comprising a ceramic tile, said ceramic tile
having a first major surface and a second major surface, said
first and second major surfaces being substantially flat surfaces
and parallel to each other, said ceramic tile further having at
least one depression in said first major surface, said depression
being at least partially filled with a second material, said armor
further comprising a rigid layer of a third material, said rigid
layer being fixedly attached to said first major surface of said
ceramic tile and contacting said second material, so as to seal
said second material between said ceramic tile and said rigid
layer, wherein said second major surface is at the strike-face of
the armor.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3 to 8, 11, 13 to 15, 17, and 19 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Cohen ‘075 (U.S. 6,575,075 B2; iss. Jun. 10, 2003)
and Cohen ‘880 (U.S. 2004/0083880 Al; pub. May 6, 2004).
2. Claims 2, 12, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cohen ‘075, Cohen ‘880, and Hunn (U.S. 7,543,523 B2; iss. Jun. 9,
2009).1
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Cohen ‘075 fails
to disclose or teach a ceramic tile as claimed?

1 Claim 9 is objected to and therefore will not be discussed in this opinion.
Appeal 2013-005716
Application 12/808,804

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Appellant’s Specification defines a tile within the context of the
invention as an object made of a continuous piece of ceramic material
having upper and lower surfaces, which are parallel to one another. The tile
may have various shapes including a cuboid form or a rounded or irregular
geometry as long as the length and width of the tile is greater than the
thickness of the tile or the upper and lower surfaces of the tile have
substantially greater measurement in comparison to the thickness (Spec. 12).
As such, the Appellant has defined a tile as having a thickness that is less
than other dimensions of the tile.
Cohen ‘075 discloses pellets 40 that in one embodiment have at least
one axis having a length in the range of 3 to 19 mm and a total weight that
does not exceed 45 kg/m2. In another embodiment, the pellets have at least
one axis having a length in the range of 20 to 60 mm and a weight that does
not exceed 185kg/m2.
The Examiner has not directed our attention to a disclosure in Cohen
‘075 regarding the relationship between the length and width of the pellet or
the upper and lower surfaces of the pellet and the thickness of the pellet.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the applied prior art does not disclose a
ceramic tile. We agree.
The Examiner relies on Cohen ‘075 for teaching this subject matter
and directs our attention to the disclosure in Cohen ‘075 regarding the length
of the axis of the pellets therein disclosed. However, this disclosure is not
directed to the thickness of the pellets in relation to the length, width or
Appeal 2013-005716
Application 12/808,804

4
upper and lower surfaces of the pellets. In this regard, we disagree with the
Examiner’s statement on page 5 of the Answer that each of the pellet axes
associated with length, width, and thickness may be varied from 3 to 19 mm
or from 20 to 60 mm. The disclosure in Cohen ‘075 relied on by the
Examiner does not disclose a relationship between the dimensions of the
pellets in relation to the thickness of the pellets. Therefore, as the
Specification defines a tile in terms of the relationship between the
dimensions of the object and the thickness of the object, Cohen ‘075 does
not disclose a tile as claimed. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 to 8 and 11 to 14 dependent thereon. We
will likewise not sustain the rejections of the remaining claims because each
of these claims recites a ceramic tile.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh