Ex parte Gates

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2001

08377924 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PETER C. GATES
____________
Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 7, 9
through 16, 18, 19, and 39 through 44. These claims
constitute all of the claims remaining in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to an extrusion die
apparatus. A basic understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 39, a copy of which
appears in “APPENDIX A” of the brief (Paper No. 13).
Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
2
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Siard 4,472,129 Sep. 18, 1984
Briggs et al 4,522,775 Jun. 11, 1985
(Briggs ‘775)
Briggs et al 4,798,526 Jan. 17, 1989
(Briggs ‘526)
Teutsch 5,069,612 Dec. 3, 1991
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 7, 9 through 16, 18, 19, and 39 through 44 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Siard or Briggs ‘526 in view of Teutsch and Briggs ‘775.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 14), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 13).

Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have1
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the1
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We do not sustain the rejection of appellant’s claims.
As disclosed by appellant (specification, page 16), die
elements can be constructed with different characteristics and
properties for handling different thermoplastic resins and/or
Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
4
materials. The example is given of making the angle of
inclination of an outer conical surface containing a helical
groove or grooves less than that of the inner conical surface
of an adjacent die element in order to vary the width of the
conical passage therebetween.
Each of independent claims 39, 40, and 41 addresses an
extrusion die apparatus with the features, inter alia, of die
elements each having an outer conical surface inclined at an
acute angle which is less than that of an inner conical
surface (decreasing cross-sectional area of conical passage
defined by the conical surfaces) and a helical groove in the
outer conical surface, with the depth of the helical groove
decreasing as the groove approaches annular thickness control
passages.
This panel of the board understands the examiner’s point
of view as articulated in the answer (pages 8 through 10) and
fully appreciates the assessment and application of the
applied Siard, Briggs ‘526, Teutsch, and Briggs ‘775 teachings
in the rejection before us. However, the difficulty that we
Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
In appellant’s specification (page 3), it is indicated2
that “[s]o far as presently known” die apparatus have not
employed helical or spiral grooves on the conical surfaces of
die elements. The applied patent to Teutsch teaches such a
die apparatus.
5
have is that the applied references, by themselves, would not
have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to modify
the Siard or Briggs ‘526 patents, as proposed. As we see it,
each of Teutsch and Briggs ‘775 would have simply been
perceived by one of ordinary skill as distinct alternatives
for effecting uniformity in an article being extruded. More
specifically, as recognized by the examiner (answer, page 6),
Teutsch instructs those versed in the art as to the benefit of
helical grooves of decreasing depth in combination with
conical surfaces that coact with one another to effect a
conical passage that increases from its inlet to its outlet. 2
On the other hand, Briggs ‘775 informs those skilled in the
art as to the practice of interfacing tapered passages alone
to effect a lesser downstream diameter and achieve laminar
flow and reduced turbulence (column 7, lines 19 through 26).
Based upon the aforementioned disclosures, it is clear to us
that the proposed combination of teachings can only be
Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
6
achieved by reliance upon impermissible hindsight. It is for
this reason that we cannot support the rejection of
appellant’s claims based upon the applied prior art.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection of claims 7, 9 through 16, 18, 19, and 39 through 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Appeal No. 1997-1731
Application No. 08/377,924
7
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC:pgg
PAUL GRANDINETTI
1725 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 1401
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1401