Ex Parte Hanson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201312290965 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/290,965 11/05/2008 Eric L. Hanson CRG 015P1 3922 7590 09/27/2013 William J. Uhl 4110 Devonwood Court Murrysville, PA 15668 EXAMINER EMPIE, NATHAN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2013 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 ERIC L. HANSON, BRUCE JACKSON, and ERIC L. BRUNER ____________ Appeal 2012-004474 Application 12/290,965 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004474 Application 12/290,965 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the final rejection of claims 1-10. Claim 11 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention relates to a method of treating a display screen with a flowable hydrophobic composition. App. Br. 2. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of treating a display screen with a flowable hydrophobic composition using an applicator comprising a housing containing a flowable hydrophobic composition; a means for dispensing the composition, the means being fixed to the housing and the dispensing means including a fibrous applicator tip in contact with the hydrophobic composition for depositing a layer of the composition on the display screen in response to contact between the applicator and the display screen, the method including the steps of: (a) grasping the housing by hand with the fibrous applicator tip pointed towards the display screen; (b) placing the fibrous applicator tip on the display screen; (c) rubbing the fibrous applicator tip over the display screen so as to draw the hydrophobic composition to the fibrous applicator tip by capillary action so as to deposit a layer of the hydrophobic composition having a water contact angle greater than 70° on the display screen; and (d) removing the fibrous applicator tip from the display screen. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Aculon, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-004474 Application 12/290,965 3 REJECTIONS The following grounds of rejection are before us on appeal:2 Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Landis (US 2009/0155455 A1, June 18, 2009) in view of Keating et al. (US 2002/0176734 A1, Nov. 28, 2002) and Coggio et al. (US 2006/0251885 A1, Nov. 9, 2006). Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Landis in view of Keating and Coggio, and further in view of Bermel (US 2003/0215581 A1, Nov. 20, 2003). ANALYSIS The rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Landis in view of Keating and Coggio The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Landis, Keating and Coggio are located on pages 4-6 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that the combination of Landis in view Keating teaches a method of treating a display screen with nail polish, which the Examiner notes is a flowable 2 After the Final Office Action, claim 1 was amended to include the limitations of claim 11, and claim 11 was cancelled. App. Br. 2, 3. In a subsequent Advisory Action, the Examiner entered the amendment and explained that the amendment did not place the application in condition for allowance because “Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly added limitations of claim 1 (basically an incorporation of claim 11) are unconvincing by similarly incorporating the teaching of Coggio (which was previously applied to reject the similar content of now canceled claim 11) into the rejection of claim 1 and carrying through to the dependant (sic) claims.” Aug. 17, 2011 Advisory Action. The Appellants appear to agree that the previous rejection of claim 11 now applies to pending claims 1-10. App. Br. 3 (the rejection of claim 11 as being obvious over Landis in view of Keating, and further in view of Coggio, “is now pertinent to present claims 1-10”). Appeal 2012-004474 Application 12/290,965 4 hydrophobic composition, applied with an applicator using a housing that holds the hydrophobic composition and is fixed to a dispensing means/applicator tip that draws the coating composition to the tip using capillary action. Ans. 4-6. Because Landis in view of Keating does not teach a water contact angle of greater than 70°, the Examiner further finds that Coggio “teaches a method of applying protective coatings to electronic display devices” and “further teaches that it is beneficial for such protective coatings to possess water contact angles of at least 90° as it lends to improved durability, ease of clean[ing], and anti-soiling properties”. Id. at 6. Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s findings of fact. Instead, Appellants contend that “the Examiner believes it would be obvious to use the compositions of Coggio in the processes of Landis and Keating.” App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, it “is doubtful” that the hydrophobic compositions disclosed in Coggio “could be applied to a substrate via capillary action as disclosed by Keating.” Id. Appellants further argue that because the hydrophobic compositions [in Coggio] are not applied directly to the display screen as required by the applicants’ claims. … one skilled in the art having the Landis, Keating and Coggio references before him would not be led to believe that the coating compositions of Coggio would at all be applicable in the method of Landis or Keating or in the method of applicants’ claims. Id. Appellants’ argument that it is “doubtful” that the Coggio compositions could be used in the processes disclosed in Landis and Keating is not persuasive because the Examiner did not rely on Coggio as disclosing hydrophobic compositions that could be used in the claimed invention. The Appeal 2012-004474 Application 12/290,965 5 Examiner relies on Coggio to establish that a water contact angle of at least 70° would have been desirable in the protective coatings of Landis because it provides ease of cleaning, and anti-soiling properties of an electronic display screen. Ans. 6; Coggio [0016] and [0033]. Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking Coggio individually when the Examiner’s rejection is based on a combination of Landis, Keating and Coggio. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10, which are not argued separately. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation