Ex Parte Klabbers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2013

11825823 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VICTOR KLABBERS and ARTHUR BRYON STACKPOLE, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2011-001696
Application 11/825,823
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JILL D. HILL, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001696
Application 11/825,823
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for making a bottle made of at least a first chamber
and a second chamber, wherein the at least second chamber is
configured such that the height of two chambers when nested is
from about 51% to about 99%, of twice the height of one
second chamber;
comprising the following steps:
(i) inserting the second chamber in a denesting unit;
(ii) dosing the second chamber from the denesting unit on
a conveyor belt;
(iii) positioning the first chamber over the second
chamber; and
(iv) assembling the second chamber and first chamber by
pressure.

Rejections
I. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mistarz (US 3,800,400, iss. Apr. 2, 1974). Ans. 3.
II. Claim 11 is rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mistarz and
Miozzo (EP 0 913 339 A1, pub. Jun 5, 1999). Ans. 4.
III. Claim 12 is rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mistarz and
Flavelle (US 3,584,431, iss. Jun. 15, 1971). Ans. 5.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-001696
Application 11/825,823
3

OPINION
Appellants argue all of the claims of all of the rejections as a group.
We select claim 1 as representative of claims 2-10. The issue with respect to
claim 1 will be dispositive for the rejections of claims 11 and 12.
For claim 1, the Examiner found that Mistarz describes each element
of the claim, except that Mistarz uses star wheels as the mode of conveying
the bottles between stations, whereas the claim requires a conveyor belt.
Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that conveyor belts are a well known mode
of conveyance and perform a similar function as star wheels (i.e., conveying
products to stations). Ans. 4, 6. Accordingly, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to substitute a
conveyor belt for the star wheel mode of conveyance in Mistarz to achieve
the same result. Id.
Appellants argue that Mistarz does not teach or suggest the use of
other production techniques, such as conveyor belts. App. Br. 3. However,
no teaching or suggestion is necessary to support a conclusion of
obviousness. Appellants next allege that the proposed modification would
render Mistarz inoperable, but provide no explanation in support of such a
position. See id. Such conclusory statements are entitled little probative
value, and here, we deem this allegation unpersuasive in view of the
Examiner’s uncontested finding that conveyor belts are well known to
perform a similar function as star wheels. Appellants lastly respond to an
“assertion [regarding] certain features,” but do not set forth any argument or
point to an alleged error on the part of the Examiner. See id. Having
reviewed the entirety of the Brief and all of the statements made therein, we
are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2011-001696
Application 11/825,823
4

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-12. 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls