Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2012

11234327 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/234,327 09/23/2005 Chae-Won Kim 2008-3032 1524
41943 7590 08/16/2012
GWIPS
Peter T. Kwon
P.O. Box 231630
Centreville, VA 20120
EXAMINER
PAINTER, BRANON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3635
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHAE-WON KIM
____________________

Appeal 2010-004529
Application 11/234,327
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004529
Application 11/234,327

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
21, 22, 24, 25, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a high-strength floor panel.
Spec. 1:7-10. Independent claim 21 is the sole independent claim on appeal,
is representative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below
(emphasis added):
21. A high-strength floor panel for constructing an elevated
floor in a clean facility room, such as a microchip laboratory or
manufacturing room, the floor panel comprising:
a pair of rim ribs (316) formed in parallel around the
floor panel (30), a plurality of rim cavity pockets formed
between the rim ribs (316), inside lateral surfaces of the rim ribs
(316) tapered from top to bottom for decreasing thickness, and
outside lateral surfaces of the rim ribs (316) flat from top to
bottom for easily clamping without slipping off,
a set of main reinforcing ribs (306) arranged in parallel
to longitudinal and transverse lateral sides of the floor panel
(30) for evenly dividing into four rows and four columns to
form a plurality of main square lattice sections (304) by
intersecting abscissa and ordinate main reinforcing ribs (306),
a set of auxiliary reinforcing ribs (307) arranged in
parallel to longitudinal and transverse lateral sides of the floor
panel (30) for evenly dividing into four rows and four columns
to form a plurality of sub-sections in each main square lattice
section (304) by intersecting abscissa and ordinate auxiliary
reinforcing ribs (307), and
Appeal 2010-004529
Application 11/234,327

3
a set of annular ribs (314) forming a 2 x 2 pattern around
vent holes (308) at a rear surface of floor panel1 for enhancing
the vent holes, and half- or full-diamond shaped recesses (312)
being grooved down to a bottom layer in each sub-section said
annular ribs (314) of the 2 x 2 pattern being surrounded by the
auxiliary reinforcing ribs or main and auxiliary reinforcing ribs2
for enhancing the floor panel.

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
1. Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
2. Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim (U.S. 6,155,013; iss. Dec. 5, 2000) and Scissom (U.S. 6,519,902
B1; iss. Feb. 18, 2003).

OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner found that independent claim 21 and its dependent
claims 22, 24, 25, and 27, are indefinite because use of the claim term “such
as” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear whether the limitations
that follow this phrase are part of the claimed invention. See Office Action

1 It appears that “floor panel,” as used here, refers to the high-strength floor
panel recited in the preamble.
2 It appears “main and auxiliary reinforcing ribs,” as recited here, refers to
the set of main reinforcing ribs (306) and the set of auxiliary reinforcing ribs
(307).
Appeal 2010-004529
Application 11/234,327

4
dated Mar. 31, 2009, at p. 2; see also Ans. 2-3 (noting this rejection is not
withdrawn and Appellant’s failure to contest this rejection).
Appellant does not present arguments related to this ground of
rejection. See Supp. Br. passim.3
As such, we summarily sustain this rejection. See In re Berger, 279
F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that Board did not err in sustaining a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed
to contest the rejection on appeal); see also Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) for the proposition that the Board may treat
arguments appellant failed to make as waived).

Obviousness over Kim and Scissom4
The Examiner found that Kim’s ribs 113 correspond to a plurality of
main reinforcing ribs and auxiliary reinforcing ribs as claimed. Specifically,
the Examiner found that Kim’s rib’s 113 around the perimeter of the square
(main square lattice section) identified in the annotated version of Kim’s
Figure 4 correspond to main reinforcing ribs, and that the ribs 113 dividing
this square (main square lattice section) into quadrants correspond to

3 Throughout this opinion, “Supp. Br.” refers to the Supplemental Appeal
Brief received Sep. 8, 2009, and “Br.” refers to the Appeal Brief filed on
Jun. 29, 2009. The record does not indicate Appellant filed a Reply Brief.
4 Although we sustained the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 as
indefinite, our evaluation of this rejection does not require considerable
speculation as to the meaning of terms or the scope of the limitations at
issue, and therefore we address this rejection. Cf. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
862 (CCPA 1962).
Appeal 2010-004529
Application 11/234,327

5
auxiliary reinforcing ribs forming sub-sections as claimed. Ans. 4-5, 7, 11;
see also Kim, fig. 4.
Appellant argues that Kim’s floor panel does not have a sub-section
rib pattern as claimed. See Br., Evidence App’x (2) at p. 75; see also Supp.
Br. 5-8 (arguing that the main and auxiliary ribs are not configured to
surround the annular ribs in the 2 by 2 pattern called for by claim 21).
The Examiner’s finding is based upon a claim interpretation that claim
21 does not call for each main square lattice section 304 to be divided into
four rows and columns of sub-sections.6 Ans. 4-5. We cannot agree with
this claim construction.
Claim 21 is directed to a high strength floor panel (30) divided by
main reinforcing ribs (306) into four rows and columns of main square
lattice sections (304), and each main square lattice section (304) is further
divided by auxiliary reinforcing ribs (307) into four rows and four columns
of sub-sections.
Therefore, claim 21 calls for auxiliary ribs to divide each main square
lattice section into four rows and four columns of subsections, while in
contrast Kim’s auxiliary ribs (ribs 13) divide each main square lattice section
into two rows and two columns of subsections. Contra. Ans. 4-5, 7, 11;
Kim, fig. 4.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 21
and its dependent claims 22, 24, 25, and 27.

5 While it appears the Examiner considered the load tests submitted by
Appellant (Ans. 13; Br., Evidence App’x (1)), the record does not reflect
that the Examiner considered Appellant’s “Innovation Activity Report”
(Ans., passim; Br., Evidence App’x (2)).
6 Perhaps this interpretation is based upon an earlier version of the claim that
did not include such limitation.
Appeal 2010-004529
Application 11/234,327

6
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 22,
24, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 , second paragraph, as indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
Appellants regard as the invention.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 22, 24, 25,
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim and Scissom.
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

JRG