Ex Parte Horst et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

13432430 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/432,430 03/28/2012
24972 7590 05/19/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karsten HORST
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1019117267 1043
EXAMINER
HEITBRINK, JILL LYNNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARSTEN HORST, ULF BEHNKE, and
JEANINE WEGNER1
Appeal2014-006887
Application 13/432,430
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to an injection molding method.
Spec. 1.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is ROBERT
BOSCH GmbH. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006887
Application 13/432,430
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and is reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix:
1. An injection molding method, the method
compnsmg:
injecting a medium into a recess in a body; and
applying a force to the body to deform the recess
in order to produce an undercut, which mechanically
retains the injected medium;
wherein the recess comprises two channel walls
running in parallel to each other, wherein the channel
walls are reduced in a bulbous manner, such that the
recess comprises a constriction.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection
of claims 1--4 and 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kanai2 and claims 5 and 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kanai in view of Arburg. 3
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of any dependent
claim, and therefore, claims 2-7 stand or fall with independent claim 1. 4
OPINION
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding that Kanai discloses or suggests applying a force to a body
to deform a recess within that body, "wherein the recess comprises two
channel walls running parallel to each other, wherein the channel walls are
2 Kanai et al., US 5,008,060, issued Apr. 16, 1991 ("Kanai").
3 Arburg, A Brief Guide into Injection Moulding (2010).
4 With regard to dependent claims 5 and 7, Appellants argue that Arburg
does not cure the "critical deficiencies" of Kanai. For the reasons described
herein, however, we find no such deficiencies with respect to Kanai.
2
Appeal2014-006887
Application 13/432,430
reduced in a bulbous manner, such that the recess comprises a constriction,"
as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Kanai discloses injection-molding a body
having a concave section (i.e., a recess) that opens onto the surface of the
body, applying a force to the body to deform the concave section in order to
produce an undercut section, and injecting a resin into the reshaped concave
section having an undercut which mechanically retains the injected resin.
Final Act. 3 (citing Kanai, 10:8-16). The Examiner further finds that "Kanai
shows in Figure 12(b) the walls at the lower portion of the concave section 3
appearing parallel." Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that "nowhere does Kanai et al. describe two
channels running in parallel to each other, much less that the channel walls
are reduced in a bulbous manner, such that the recess comprises a
constriction." App. Br. 3. Specifically with regard to Figure 12(b) of Kanai,
Appellants argue that "sides 50 and 51 are not parallel to each other, but
merely curved inward toward each other, and much less 'deformed into a
bulbous channel wall."' Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Kanai discloses forming a first and second injection-molded body,
wherein the second molded body is "tightly fixed in concave sections of said
first molded bod[y]." Kanai, 2:3-8. Kanai accomplishes this through
catching (or holding) means ... formed on the side wall faces of
the concave sections of the first molded body by the steps of
forming an undercut section, by pressing upon the rim, or interior
walls to the concave section, to project the rim area of the side
walls towards the inside of the concave section.
Id. at 2:11-16.
3
Appeal2014-006887
Application 13/432,430
One embodiment of Kanai' s first and second injection-molded body is
shown in Figure 12(b ), reproduced below.
51
A
Figure 12(b) of Kanai shows first injection molded body A, second
molded injection body B, and concave section 3 in A, having an undercut
section formed by "pressing the upper sections of the sides 50 and 51 inward
by a curved face 52 of the mold Y." Id. at 8:29-33. We agree with the
Examiner that this embodiment of Kanai shows at least the lower portion of
channel walls 50 and 51 of recess 3 running in parallel to each other. Ans. 4.
Kanai also discloses that the upper, curved portions of the walls form an
undercut section that comprises a constriction that retains the second molded
injection body B. Kanai, 8:29-33.
Appellants' argument that Figure 12(b) of Kanai does not disclose
walls that are reduced in a bulbous manner as recited in claim 1 is
unavailing. The upper section of walls 50 and 51 in Kanai Figure 12 are
forced inward in the direction of the opening of concave section 3 to form a
constriction. Kanai 8:29-33, Fig. 12. This is similar to the configuration of
4
Appeal2014-006887
Application 13/432,430
walls 501a and 501b in Appellants' Figure 5, which Appellants describe as
"tapering bulbously" to form a constriction. Spec. 9:32-10:5, Fig. 5.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner did not err reversibly in
determining that Kanai discloses or suggests applying a force to a body to
deform a recess within that body, "wherein the recess comprises two channel
walls running parallel to each other, wherein the channel walls are reduced
in a bulbous manner, such that the recess comprises a constriction," as
recited in claim 1.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5