Ex Parte Krause et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 2010

11329618 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AARON C. KRAUSE and SAUL D. DENENBERG
____________

Appeal 2009-008525
Application 11/329,618
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008525
Application 11/329,618

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Aaron C. Krause and Saul D. Denenberg (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is a foam hybrid buffing pad for use
with a rotary buffing machine for high speed polishing of automobiles,
boats, planes, furniture, marble and other surfaces. Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A buffing pad for polishing surfaces comprising:
a generally circular layer of foam material having a
working face;
filaments of textile material extending through said foam
material and extending beyond said working face, and
means for securing said pad to a rotary power buffer.
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable in view of Schlegel (US Patent
2,332,936; issued October 26, 1943) and Scheider (US Patent 4,945,687;
issued August 7, 1990).
Appeal 2009-008525
Application 11/329,618

3
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the teachings of
Schlegel and Scheider in such a way as to result in the claimed buffing pad
having a layer of foam material having a working face and filaments of
textile material extending through the foam material and beyond the working
face.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 6 each recite a buffing pad comprising a
generally circular layer of foam material having a working face and
filaments of textile material either extending through or interspersed
throughout the foam material and extending beyond the working face.
Independent claim 11 recites a combination of a foam material and filaments
of textile material, the foam material having a working face, and the
filaments extending beyond the working face.
The Examiner found that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the
invention of Schlegel with the use of polyurethane foam as taught by
Scheider to adapt the tool for applications wherein mild abrading properties
are desired.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner’s proposed combination appears to be based on
improper hindsight. While Scheider describes a foamed elastomeric bond,
the foamed material of Scheider having abrasive grit particles and
monofilament encapsulated therein is described as being designed to be
Appeal 2009-008525
Application 11/329,618

4
“especially suitable for cleaning or treating drilled holes and tubes” (col. 3,
ll. 49-51) and as providing “improved cutting action and material removal
versus tool life” (col. 1, ll. 50-53). Further, Scheider discloses that some
work in the area of foamed polymeric materials having abrasive dispersed
throughout (“foamed abrasives”) has been done, but that this work has been
almost entirely limited to scouring pads. Scheider, col. 1, ll. 19-30. As
such, Scheider would not have taught one of ordinary skill in the art of a
foamed material providing “mild abrading properties” as posited by the
Examiner.
Further, we understand the Examiner’s proposed combination to be
based on using the polishing disk and polishing fibers of Schlegel with the
foamed material of Scheider in place of Schlegel’s latex backing. Ans. 3.
See also Ans. 4 (describing that Schegel’s modified backing can be a
working face because Schlegel discloses that the tufts of polishing fibers can
be spaced as desired to vary the density of the mass of fibers at the polishing
face). We also base this understanding, in part, on the fact that the claims
require the filaments of textile material to extend beyond the working face,
and Scheider’s monofilaments extend only to, but not beyond, the working
face. See Scheider, figs. 1-4.
We agree with Appellants that it would not have been obvious to
replace Schlegel’s latex backing with the foamed material of Scheider,
because Schlegel’s latex backing 20 is described as holding and supporting
the polishing fibers or strands 11, the ends of which form the outer polishing
face 15, and the latex backing 20 of Schlegel does not appear to contact the
Appeal 2009-008525
Application 11/329,618

5
surface to be polished when in use. Schlegel 1, col. 1, l. 54 – col. 2, l. 1; id.
at 1, col. 2, ll. 29-35. As such, we find that the Examiner’s proposed
combination is based on improper hindsight.
CONCLUSION
A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to
combine the teachings of Schlegel and Scheider in such a way as to result in
the claimed buffing pad having a layer of foam material having a working
face and filaments of textile material extending through the foam material
and beyond the working face.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

nlk

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL MN 55133-3427