Ex Parte Kerr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

11655348 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111655,348 01119/2007
27752 7590 05/23/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
George Scott Kerr
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.
10288 8651
EXAMINER
MACKEY, JAMES P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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):
centraldocket.im @pg.com
pair_pg@firsttofile.com
mayer.jk@pg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE SCOTT KERR, GREGORY CHRISTOPHER
PEISCHL, and RAINER ARMBRUSTER
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of January 19, 2007
(Spec.), the Final Office Action ofNovember 6, 2015 (Final), the Appeal
Brief of June 6, 2016 (Br.), the Response to Notification of Non-Compliant
Appeal Brief of August 19, 2016 (Resp. Notif. Non-Compl. Br.), and the
Examiner's Answer of February 24, 2017 (Ans.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Procter & Gamble
Company. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
The claims are directed to a modular mold system. Claim 56 is
illustrative:
56. A modular mold system comprising multiple
mold designs, multiple mold sizes, or both, wherein the
molds of the system are provided in groups having
identical modular insert sizes, and for each mold group,
the system comprises a common injection point in all
molds of identical modular insert size.
Resp. Notif. Non-Compl. Br. 3 (claims appendix).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Taketa3;
B. The rejection of claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Crain4 ;
C. The rejection of claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miyairi5;
D. The rejection of claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Scotti6;
E. The rejection of claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Komatsu7; and
F. The rejection of claims 61, 70, 79, and 80 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 i-f 2 as indefinite.
3 US 3,871,611, issued Mar. 18, 1975.
4 US 7 ,204,685 B 1, issued Apr. 17, 2007.
5 US 4,867,668, issued Sept. 19, 1989.
6 US 2005/0084558 Al, published Apr. 21, 2005.
7 JP 03-190714, published Aug. 20, 1991
2
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
Obviousness over Taketa
OPINION
For the rejection of claims 56, 57, 60-67, 69-71, and 75-80 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Taketa, as Appellants do not argue any
claim apart from the others, we select claim 56 as representative for deciding
the issues on appeal.
There is no dispute that Taketa teaches a modular mold system
including a mold (mold halves 10, 12) having identical modular insert sizes
(removable cores 24, removable cavities 26). Compare Final 5, with Br. 6;
see also Taketa col. 2, 11. 44--52, Fig. 1.
There is further no dispute that Taketa suggests using multiple mold
designs. Compare Final 5, with Br. 6. Taketa discloses that different cores
24 and cavities 26 can be placed within the mold halves 10 and 12 to form
different parts. Taketa col. 6, 11. 9-11. Several different parts can be molded
in the same mold. Taketa col. 6, 11. 43-53. Effectively, the mold is a multi-
cavity mold that allows the molding of low volume parts in the same fashion
as high volume parts in a multi-cavity mold. Id.
Also, there is no dispute Taketa does not disclose providing the molds
(mold halves 10, 12) in mold groups. Compare Final 5, with Br. 6.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the mold of
Taketa (and its accompanying structures including the mold inserts) to form
a group of at least two identical molds having exchangeable mold inserts as
it is within the skill of the ordinary artisan to duplicate parts. Id.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's rationale based on duplication of
parts, but then merely contend that "Taketa merely describes the
3
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
replacement of modular inserts within the same mold but Taketa does not
describe a grouping of molds having identical modular insert sizes." Id.
This argument is not persuasive because it does not uncover a reversible
error in the rejection. The rejection is based on duplicating the mold and
every part of the mold. The original mold and the duplicated mold would be
a grouping of molds within the meaning of claim 56.
Appellants offer no persuasive argument against the Examiner's
rationale based on duplicating Taketa' s mold including all its parts. And the
fact that the reference is silent with regard to duplicating the mold and all its
parts does not overcome a rejection based on obviousness. See In re Harza,
27 4 F .2d 669, 671 (CCP A 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication
of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is
produced."). Duplicating the mold would, as reasoned by the Examiner,
increase productivity; two molds can produce double the number of parts as
a single mold.
Appellants further contend that because Taketa does not describe a
grouping of molds having identical modular insert sizes, Taketa may also
not disclose that for each mold group the system comprises a common
injection point in all molds of identical modular insert size. Br. 6. This
argument fails because all the structures and components of the duplicate
mold would be identical to the original mold. That is the nature of
duplication. Taketa's mold includes a sprue 36 that defines the injection
point at which molding material is injected into the mold. Taketa col. 3, 11.
23-31; Figs. 1-2 (showing sprue 36 within mold half 12). Appellants do not
dispute that sprue 36 defines the injection point. Br. 6. Like all the other
structures and components of the mold, the injection point would be the
4
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
same in the duplicated mold and, thus, would be a common injection point in
all molds of identical modular insert size.
Obviousness over Crain, Miyairi, Scotti, and Komatsu
For the reasons provided by the Examiner (Ans. 9-11), we do not find
Appellants' arguments against the rejections over Crain, Miyairi, Scotti, and
Komatsu persuasive.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 61, 70, 79, and 80 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 i-f 2 as indefinite.
Claim 61 depends from claim 60, which depends from claim 56.
Claim 61 further limits the modular mold system to one including at least
two mold sizes comprising standardized and identical components (see claim
60) and requires the standardized and identical components be "selected
from the group consisting of a mold mounting block, a cooling system, an
ejector system, a hot runner system, a cavity distance, a plate dimension for
mold build-up, a water connection, an air connection, a hydraulic
connection, a limit switch connection, an insert connection, a plug
configuration box and combinations thereof." Resp. Notif. Non-Compl. Br.
3 (claims appendix) (emphasis added).
Claim 70 depends from claim 56 and reads:
70. A modular mold system according to Claim 56 comprising
at least two mold sizes designs [sic] or mold designs further
comprising at least two in number of modular inserts in
combination with at least two modular inserts having
components selected from the group consisting of a mold
mounting block, a cooling system, an ejector system, a hot
runner system, a cavity distance, a plate dimension for mold
5
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
build-up, a water connection, an air connection, a hydraulic
connection, a limit switch connection, an insert connection,
a plug configuration box and combinations thereof.
Resp. Notif. Non-Compl. Br. 4 (claims appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that "a cavity distance" and "a plate
dimension" are indefinite terms because dimensions and distances are not
"components" of the apparatus. Final 3. Further, the Examiner determines
"a plate dimension" is indefinite because it is unclear how this "plate"
relates to, and cooperates with, the other structural elements of the claimed
apparatus. Id.
Appellants contend that the terms are definite because they would be
readily understood as defined in the claims and further understood from the
Specification at page 12, lines 4--12.
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that the Markush groupings of claims 61 and 70 are indefinite.
First, the Specification offers no real insight into the claim language.
Spec. 12:4--12. Page 12, lines 7-8 is the only location in the Specification
using the terms. Here, the Specification refers to "standard cavity distance"
and "standard plate dimensions" as "standardized and/or identical and/or
common components." The fact that the Specification uses similar language
to the claims does not make the claim language definite.
Second, the Markush group itself illustrates the problem. Appellants'
Markush group lists a cavity distance and a plate dimension amongst a list of
structural components such as a mold mounting block and a cooling system.
Things like a mold mounting block and a cooling system are readily
understood as separate structural components that can be included in a
6
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
modular mold system. But a cavity distance is merely a measurement for
some undefined cavity. And a plate dimension is a dimension of a structural
component, i.e., a plate, not mentioned in the claim. In other words, claims
61 and 70 fail to include a recitation that the insert defines a cavity and fail
to include a recitation that the system includes a plate. A cavity distance and
a plate dimension cannot exist without a cavity and a plate. The problem
here is that the claims do not adequately define the structures within the
apparatus.
The Examiner rejects claims 79 and 80 on different grounds. Claims
79 and 80 require the molds of the system be provided in groups wherein
each of a component on either a nozzle side (claim 79) or an ejector side
(claim 80) of the group of molds are identical. The Examiner determines
that "each of a component" is indefinite because it is unclear how this
"component" relates to, and cooperates with, the modular inserts of the
modular mold system of claim 56. The Examiner explains that "claims must
clearly set forth the structural cooperation between the structures being
claimed." Ans. 8.
Appellants contend the claims are definite because page 8, lines 1-20
of the Specification "states that Figure 6 demonstrates the common
components on both sides of the mold, either the ejector side or the nozzle
side" and, therefore, claims 79 and 80 "clearly define how the component
relates to and cooperates with the modular inserts of the modular mold
system as recited in Claim 56." Br. 2.
Page 8, lines 1-20 of the Specification describe the ejector side 55 as
including mounting blocks 57, pins 58, mounting plate 59, and mounting
frame 60. Spec. 8: 1-7. This portion of the Specification also describes the
7
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
nozzle side as having pins 61, molding plates 62, and mounting blocks 63.
Id. This portion of the Specification also states that "Figure 6 demonstrates
the common components on both sides of the mold, either the ejector side or
the nozzle side." Id. But claims 56, 79, and 80 do not identify a component
as an affirmative structure within the modular mold system, much less
identify the component as a mounting block, pin, or mounting plate.
The claims do not affirmatively define that the modular mold system
has "a component" and because the claims do not affirmatively recite that
the system has "a component," it is not clear how the component is related
to, and cooperates with, the modular inserts.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
61, 70, 79, § 112 iT 2 61, 70, 79,
80 80
56,57,60- § 103(a) Taketa 56,57,60-
67, 69-71, 67, 69-71,
75-80 75-80
56,57,60- § 103(a) Crain 56,57,60-
67, 69-71, 67, 69-71,
75-80 75-80
56,57,60- § 103(a) Miyairi 56,57,60-
65, 67, 69, 65, 67, 69,
70, 76-80 70, 76-80
56, 60-63, § 103(a) Scotti 56, 60-63,
67, 76-79 67, 76-79
56, 60-62, § 103(a) Komatsu 56, 60-62,
64, 65, 67, 64, 65, 67,
70, 77-79 70, 77-79
8
Appeal2017-008034
Application 11/655,348
Summary
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
56,57,60-
67, 69-71,
75-80
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
9