Ex Parte HORST et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201613432430 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation