Ex Parte Karam et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 2009

10857202 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FOUAD TORKUM KARAM
and SYLVIE GAUTHIER
____________

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 March 24, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Primary Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 24. Claims 10-23 have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6. 2
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for the production of a
fiber-reinforced decorative laminate. Claims 1 and 24 are representative of
the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for the production of a fiber-reinforced decorative
laminate comprising:

stacking in a superimposed relationship a decorative layer, which
includes one or more decorative sheets, said decorative layer being
at least partially resin-impregnated and at least partially cured, and
a fiber-reinforced core layer, which includes at least one fiber-
reinforced sheet and at least one cellulosic sheet, wherein the at
least one fiber-reinforced sheet is substantially devoid of cellulose
and at least partially resin-impregnated and at least partially cured;

simultaneously curing, under heat and pressure, said decorative
and core layers to create said fiber-reinforced decorative laminate;
and

cooling the laminate under pressure.

24. A method for the production of a fiber-reinforced decorative
laminate comprising:

stacking in a superimposed relationship a decorative layer and a fiber-
reinforced core layer, wherein the decorative layer includes one or

2 In rendering this Decision, we have considered the Appellants’ arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief dated November 6, 2007 and the Reply Brief
dated February 19 2008.
2

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

more decorative sheets, said decorative layer being at least partially
resin-impregnated and at least partially cured, and wherein the fiber-
reinforced core layer includes at least one fiber-reinforced sheet that is
substantially devoid of cellulose, at least partially resin-impregnated,
and at least partially cured;

simultaneously curing, under heat and pressure, said decorative and
core layers to create said fiber-reinforced decorative laminate; and

cooling the laminate under pressure.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-9, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Laurence, Published U.S. Patent Application
2002/0160680 A1, published October 31, 2002, in view of Smith, U.S.
Patent No. 4,948,661, issued August 14, 1990.?
The Examiner contends that Laurence describes a method for
producing a fiber-reinforced decorated laminate comprising stacking a
decorative layer, comprising one or more decorative sheets, and a fiber-
reinforced core layer, wherein the fiber-reinforced core layer includes at
least one fiber-reinforced sheet that is substantially devoid of cellulose. The
decorative layer and fiber-reinforced layer are simultaneously cured under
heat and pressure to create said fiber-reinforced decorative laminate; and
cooling the laminate under pressure. The Examiner acknowledges that
Laurence further describes the core layer can comprise fibers such as a layer
of nonwoven glass, carbon, or polymeric fiber cloth or mat. (Ans. 3-4). The
Examiner cited the Smith reference for teaching that it is well known to
persons of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fiber to reinforce thermoplastic
3

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

sheets. (Ans. 4). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of Laurence for
producing a fiber-reinforced decorated laminate wherein fibers are utilized
to reinforce the core layer of the laminate. (Ans. 3-5).
Appellants contend that Laurence does not disclose a fiber-reinforced
core layer and therefore does not anticipate or suggest the method of the
claimed invention. (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants contend that while Laurence
discloses the PETG core layer can be in fibrous form, the reference discloses
that the laminate is subject to elevated pressure and temperature causing the
PETG to soften and flow into the stack. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1-2).
Appellants acknowledge that Laurence discloses an alternative embodiment
which includes fibrous material. (App. Br. 8). However, Appellants
contend the structure does not include a fiber-reinforced sheet as required by
the claimed invention. (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that the
combination of Laurence and Smith teaches away from the claimed
invention. (App. Br. 10-11).
The issue presented is: did Appellants identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims under § 103? The issue turns
on whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to perform the method of Laurence for producing a decorative laminate that
comprises a fiber- reinforced core layer.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is not patentable within the meaning of § 103
4

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
OPINION
The following factual findings (FF) are relevant in resolving the
dispositive issue in this appeal:
(1) Laurence describes methods for producing decorative
laminates with enhanced moisture resistance and
dimensional stability. Laurence discloses the laminates
are particularly useful in flooring applications where
there will be repeated or prolonged exposure to moisture
or water. (Laurence, [0002]).
(2) Laurence discloses the core layer can include sheets of
PETG and PETG in fibrous form. (Laurence, [0042]).
(3) Laurence discloses in addition to PETG the core layer
can further comprise a layer of woven or non-woven
glass, carbon or polymeric fiber cloth or mat (or other
material) sandwiched in between two or more sheets of
PETG. (Laurence, [0048]).
(4) Laurence discloses to achieve the desired results of
adequate softening and bonding of the PETG to both the
melamine surface and vinyl core, it is critical to control
the temperature and pressure utilized to prevent
excessive flow and squeezing out of the PETG.
(Laurence, [0074], [0082]).
5

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

(5) Laurence discloses the core of a conventional decorative
laminate can comprise woven or nonwoven glass, carbon
or polymeric fiber clothes or mats. (Laurence, [0048]).
(6) Smith discloses thermoplastic fiber-reinforced layers can
include fiberglass, carbon, and aramid fibers. (Smith,
col. 5, ll. 48-61).
(7) The Specification discloses the fiber-reinforced layer can
include “multiple sheets or plies that are reinforced only
with glass, carbon, aramid, boron, and other known
synthetic reinforcing fibers. The reinforcing fiber sheets
may be supplied as woven or non-woven sheets, and as
continuous or discontinuous fibers, as are generally
known in the art.” (Spec. [0023]).
(8) The Specification discloses that composite structural
panels formed from woven, non-woven or chopped
fibers bound together with a thermosetting or a
thermoplastic resin have been known by persons of
ordinary skill in the art. (Spec. [0005]).
(9) The Examiner determined that it would been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the
method of Laurence for producing a fiber reinforced
decorated laminate wherein fibers are utilized to
reinforce the core layer of the laminate. (Ans. 3-5).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
6

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any. See
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of
whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007). “[I]f a technique has been used to improve
one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.; see also
DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in
the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself.”).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings (FF)
in the record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness, which prima facie case has not been
adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. The present record reveals
that composite structural panels formed from woven, non-woven or chopped
fibers bound together with a thermosetting or a thermoplastic resin have
been known by persons of ordinary skill in the art. (FF 5, 6, and 8).
Laurence discloses the core layer can include sheets of PETG (also in
fibrous form) as well as a layer of woven or non-woven glass, carbon or
7

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

polymeric fiber cloth or mat (or other material) sandwiched in between two
or more sheets of PETG. (FF 2-3). Laurence acknowledges during
processing that that melting of the PETG can occur. Specifically, Lawrence
discloses it is critical to control the temperature and pressure utilized to
prevent excessive flow and squeezing out of the PETG. (FF 4). Thus, it
appears during processing conditions where melting of the PETG occurs
(also sufficient to prevent excessive flow and squeezing out of the PETG)
the PETG would impregnate the fiber cloth or mat thereby forming a fiber-
reinforced core layer as required by the claims.
Notwithstanding the above, the methods of forming composite
structural panels from fibrous cloth or mats were known to persons of
ordinary skill in the art. (FF 5, 6, and 8). As such, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have reasonably expected that a method for producing a
fiber-reinforced decorative laminate as required by the claimed invention
would have required no more than ordinary creativity by one of ordinary
skill in the art to provide a fibrous core layer in the composite laminate
material of Laurence. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1741 (2007) (In making an obviousness determination one “can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ”).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection presented in this appeal.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-9, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
8

Appeal 2008-5195
Application 10/857,202

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)(v)(2008).
AFFIRMED

cam

O'SHEA GETZ, P.C.
1500 MAIN STREET, SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115
9