Ex Parte Haataja

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 14, 2006

11060994 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRUCE A. HAATAJA
____________

Appeal 2007-0213
Application 11/060,994
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 14, 2006
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5. Claim 1 is
illustrative:

Appeal 2007-0213
Application 11/060,994

1. An article of manufacture formed from binder coated wood flakes,
having a lopsided funnel shaped hole extending from one surface of said
article to the other, said hole having one side portion extending
approximately perpendicularly from said surface and an opposite portion
side portion extending from said one surface at an angle of 20 degrees or
more with respect to said perpendicular, whereby said hole has a generally
elliptically shaped opening at said one surface and a generally circular
shaped opening at said other surface.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Akerson US 3,143,026 Aug. 4, 1964
Preston US 6,569,540 B1 May 27, 2003
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an article of manufacture,
such as a molded wood strand product, having a lopsided funnel shaped hole
extending from one surface to another surface of the article. The hole has a
generally elliptically shaped opening at one surface and a generally circular
shaped opening at the other surface.
Appealed claim 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Akerson. Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Akerson in view of Preston.
Appellant has not set forth a separate substantive argument against the
§ 103 rejection of claims 2-5. Rather, Appellant relies solely upon the
argument against the § 102 rejection of claim 1 upon which claims 2-5
depend (see page 5 of Br., last para.). Accordingly, we will limit our
consideration to the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that
Akerson describes the subject matter of claim 1 within the meaning of § 102.
2
Appeal 2007-0213
Application 11/060,994

Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Akerson describes an article of manufacture formed from binder coated
wood flakes having a lopsided funnel shaped hole extending from one
surface, wherein the hole has one side portion extending approximately
perpendicularly from said surface and an opposite portion side portion
extending from said one surface at an angle of 20 degrees or more with
respect to the perpendicular, as recited in claim 1. The sole argument
advanced by Appellant is that Figure 1 of Akerson shows that "the tubular
channels 15 do not extend through the body" and, therefore, Akerson "does
not include a lopsided funnel-shaped hole extending from one surface of an
article to another" (page 4 of Br., second para.). However, as accurately
pointed out by the Examiner, Akerson expressly discloses that "[t]he aim is
to provide a multiplicity of cavities each connected to at least one surface
opening by a channel from the cavity to the opening" (col. 3, ll. 15-17,
emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has reasonably
interpreted the reference disclosure as fairly describing cavities which
extend from one surface of the article to another surface of the article.
Significantly, Appellant has not refuted the Examiner's interpretation of the
reference disclosure, i.e., Appellant has not submitted a Reply Brief which
addresses the pertinent disclosure of Akerson. We also note that Appellant
has not rebutted the Examiner's reasonable conclusion that the tool depicted
in Figure 5 of Akerson would produce a hole in accordance with the general
configuration of the claimed hole.

3
Appeal 2007-0213
Application 11/060,994

Concerning the § 103 rejection of claims 2-5, Appellant, as noted
above, has not rebutted the Examiner's legal conclusion that "it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's
invention was made to provide Akerson with wood flakes have [sic, having]
an average length of from 1¼ to about 6 inches to about 2-3 inches, an
average thickness of from about 0.015 to about 0.25 inch or 0.015–0.03 inch,
and an average width of less than the average length of no greater than
3 inches, from about 0.25 to about 1 inch in order to facilitate proper
alignment in oriented wood composites (col. 5, lines 59-60) as taught by
Preston" (page 3 of Examiner's rejection of June 6, 2005).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner's decision
rejecting the appealed claims 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)(iv)(2006).

AFFIRMED

cam

PRICE HENEELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP
695 Kenmoor, S.E.
P. O. Box 2567
Grand Rapids, MI 49501

4