Ex parte Langford et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 1998

07911729 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 10, 1992. According1
to the appellants, the application is a division of Application
07/482,258, filed February 20, 1990, now U.S. Patent
No. 5,146,646.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NATHANIEL P. LANGFORD and DANIEL H. BISHOP
____________
Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,7291
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RONALD SMITH, WEIFFENBACH and PAK, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s refusal to allow
claims 17 through 20. Claim 20 was amended subsequent to
final rejection. Claims 21 through 31 stand withdrawn from
consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim 17 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows:
Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,729
2
17. Method of making a paint applicator that can be mounted
on a paint roller, said method comprising the sequential steps
of:
a) continuously forming a cylindrical core of paint-
impervious material,
b) spirally winding onto, and bonding to, the core an
elongated strip of a resilient, reticulated reservoir,
c) forming on the exterior surface of the reservoir a
flexible reticulated metering layer which has at least
twice as many openings/cm as does the reservoir and a
thickness less than one-half that of the reservoir,
d) bonding the metering layer to the underlying
reservoir only at crossing points of the reticulations,
and
e) cutting the resulting composite to individual
roller lengths.
The references of record relied on by the examiner are:
Mallindine 3,588,264 Jun. 28, 1971
Scholl et al. (Scholl) 3,655,477 Apr. 11, 1972
Grewe 3,671,373 Aug. 11, 1970
Published British Patent Application having a publication number
of 1 214 170, “Adhesive Lamination of Flexible Webs,” Leo Marcel
Germain, Dec. 2, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “Germain”).
Applicant’s admission at pages 1 and 2 of the specification
(hereinafter referred to as “admitted prior art”).
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Grewe and
Germain. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Grewe and
Germain as applied to claim 17 and 18 above, further in view
Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,729
At pages 5 and 6 of the specification, appellant2
distinguishes forming a flexible reticulated metering layer
from providing a flexible reticulated metering layer.
3
of Mallindine. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Grewe,
Germain and Mallindine as applied to claims 17-19 above,
further in view of Scholl.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including all
of the arguments advanced by appellant and the examiner in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well-
founded for essentially those reasons expressed at page 5 of the
Brief and pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief. Accordingly, we
reverse each of the foregoing rejections. We only add that the
examiner must be mindful of his burden of supplying evidence for
establishing obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 154
USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
However, as indicated by appellant at page 5 of the Brief and
pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief, the examiner has not met
his burden of establishing obviousness for the limitation
“forming on the exterior surface of the reservoir a flexible2
Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,729
Reticulated means resembling a “network”. See page 23
of the Reply Brief and page 504 of Grant & Hackh’s Chemical
Dictionary, Fifth Edition, McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, Grant
et al., 1987.
4
reticulated metering layer which has at least twice as many3
openings/cm as does the reservoir and a thickness less than one-
half that of the reservoir, [and] “bonding [thereof] to the
underlying reservoir only at crossing points of the reticulations
. . .” in claim 17 (emphasis supplied). The decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 17-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
RONALD H. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,729
5
WILLIAM L. HUEBSCH
3M OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROP. COUNSEL
P.O. BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
CKP/jrg
APPEAL NO. 94-2864 - JUDGE PAK
APPLICATION NO. 07/911,729
APJ PAK
APJ R. SMITH
APJ WEIFFENBACH
DECISION: REVERSED
Typed By: Jenine Gillis
DRAFT TYPED: 19 Feb 99
FINAL TYPED: