Ex Parte Langley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 13, 2002

08871898 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ANDREW LANGLEY
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant’s invention relates generally to an ink storage
reservoir apparatus for a printer, which includes a bag of
flexible plastic film (35 and 38). See Appellant’s
specification Figures 1 through 4, see also page 2, lines 11-
21, page 3, lines 14-25 and page 4, line 26 through page 6,
line 22. The apparatus includes a plug (23) which serves to
close a mouth of the bag (37 or 39). See Appellant’s
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
2
specification Figure 2, see also page 4, lines 14-19, page 4,
line 33 through page 5, line 1 and lines 10-19. The mouth (37
and 39) of the bag (35 and 38) is defined by an encircling lip
of flexible plastic film which is uniform in thickness. See
Appellant’s specification Figure 2, see also page 4, line 33
through page 5, line 1, page 5, lines 10-19, and Appellant’s
Amendment B, Paper No.6, dated June 28, 1999, page 3,
paragraphs 2-3.
The plug (23) has an outward-facing surface with circular
dimensions relative to the mouth (37 and 39) of the bag (35 and
38). In order for the mouth (37 and 39) to be fitted over the
plug (23), the lip of film that defines the mouth must be
stretched. See Appellant’s specification Figures 3 and 4, see
also page 5, lines 10-30, page 6, lines 9-22, and Appellant’s
Amendment B, Paper No.6, dated June 28, 1999, page 3,
paragraphs 2-3. The lip lies stretched over the outer surface
of the plug (26). See Appellant’s specification Figures 3 and
4, see also page 5, lines 10-30, page 6, lines 9-22, and
Appellant’s Amendment B, Paper No.6, dated June 28, 1999, page
3, paragraphs 2-3.
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
3
The apparatus includes a plastic ring (32) having an
inward-facing surface (34) complementary to the outward-facing
surface (26) of the plug (23). See Appellant’s specification
Figures 1 and 4, see also page 4, lines 21-28 and page 5, lines
22-33. The dimensions of the ring (32), in relation to the
dimensions of the plug (23) and of the lip stretched over the
outer surface (26) of the plug (23) cause a tight interference
fit. See Appellant’s specification Figures 1 and 4, see also
page 4, lines 21-28, page 6, lines 16-22, page 6, line 34
through page 7, line 15, and Appellant’s Amendment B, Paper
No.6, dated June 28, 1999, page 3, paragraphs 2-3. The ring
(32) acts to seal and grip the lip, tightly and securely
between the plug (23) by a uniform interference fit. See
Appellant’s specification Figures 1 and 4, see also page 4,
lines 21-28, page 6, lines 16-22, page 6, line 34 through page
7, line 15, and Appellant’s Amendment B, Paper No.6, dated June
28, 1999, page 3, paragraphs 2-3.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 8 through 16 are pending
before us on appeal, and claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. Ink-storage reservoir apparatus for a printer,
wherein: the apparatus includes a bag of flexible plastic film;
the apparatus includes a plug, which serves to close a mouth of
the bag; the mouth of the bag is defined by an encircling lip
of the flexible plastic film; the lip is uniform in thickness,
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
4
around the mouth of the bag; the plug has an outward-facing
surface;
the apparatus includes a membrane, which can be pierced by, and
seal around, a
sharp hollow needle;
the dimensions of the outward-facing surface of the plug, in
relation to the dimensions
of the mouth of the bag, are such that, in order for the
mouth to be fitted over
the plug, the lip of film that defines the mouth of the
bag must be stretched; the said lip lies stretched over the
outer surface of the plug; the apparatus includes a ring, and
the ring has an inward-facing surface, which is
complementary to the outward-facing surface of the plug;
the inward-facing surface of the ring, and the outward-facing
surface of the plug, are
substantially circular in form, their circular forms being
concentric;
the dimensions of the ring, in relation tot he dimensions of
the plug and of the lip of
film that defines the mouth of the bag when the lip lies
stretched over the outer surface of the plug, are such
that the ring is a tight
interference fit over the lip of film when the
lip is stretched over the outer surface of the plug;
the ring lies pressed over the lip and over the plug, and
encircles
the plug;
whereby the lip of film that defines the mouth of the bag is
sealed and gripped, tightly
and securely, between the outward-facing surface of the
plug and the inward-facing surface of the ring;
the ring is of a relatively rigid plastic material, and is
annular in form, and its form is
characterized as thick and chunky;
the tightness of the interference fit between the plug and the
ring, the said lip of film
being trapped therebetween, is such that the bag and the
ring are held firmly
and securely to the plug by friction induced by the tight
fit;
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
5
the interference fit between the plug and the bag and between
the plug and the ring is
uniform a to the tightness of the fit, around the mouth of
the bag.
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Ecklund 5,359,356 Oct. 25, 1994
Kubota et al. (Kubota) 5,611,461 Mar. 18, 1997
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ecklund in view of Kubota.
Opinion
With full consideration being given to the subject matter
on appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s arguments,
we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 6,
and 8 through 16.
Appellants argue that neither Ecklund nor Kubota teach
“the a lip lies stretched over the outer surface of the plug”,
as recited in independent claim 1. See Appellant’s Amended
Appeal Brief, Paper No. 18, page 5, paragraph 6 through page 8,
paragraph 5, see also Appellant’s Reply Brief, Paper No. 21,
page 1, paragraphs 1 through 5.
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
6
In the final office action, the Examiner stated, “Ecklund
does not disclose that the mouth of the bag lies stretched over
the outer surface of the plug and secured by a ring . . .”.
See Final Office Action, Paper No. 5, dated April 28, 1999,
page 3, lines 16-18. However, in response to Appellant’s
arguments upon appeal, the Examiner changed positions in the
Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner now asserts that Ecklund does
teach a lip stretched over the outer surface of the plug. The
Examiner relies upon Ecklund’s teachings that the plug (44) has
a “diameter substantially similar to the inner diameter” of the
mouth of the bag (32)(e.g. 1.305 inches). The Examiner
concludes that the bag (32) must be stretched in order to lie
over the surface of plug (44). See Examiner’s Answer, Paper
No. 19, dated March 28, 2000, page 6, line 14 through page 7,
line 1.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
7
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter.
In re Fine, 87 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the
Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all the evidence and arguments.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made,
based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the
agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With these principles in
mind, we commence review of the pertinent evidence and
arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, the Patent and
Trademark Office must first determine the scope of the claim.
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
8
“[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When
interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given
their ordinary and customary meaning, unless it appears from
the specification or the file history that they were used
differently by the inventor. See Carroll Touch, Inc. v.
Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d
1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is indeed
free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her
invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Our reviewing
court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”
Claim 1 recites “a lip lies stretched over the outer
surface of the plug”. Appellant’s specification teaches that
the lip of the mouth of plastic film is stretched substantially
so that no wrinkles remain. Appellant’s specification
discloses that the stretching is important because the
slightest wrinkle in the film will result in leakage over time.
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
9
See Appellant’s specification, page 6, lines 6-11. Therefore,
Appellant’s claim 1 does require structure such that the lip of
the bag lies stretched over the outer surface of the plug.
Upon review of both references as a whole, we find that neither
reference teaches nor suggests a “a lip lies stretched over the
outer surface of the plug”, as recited in claim 1. Ecklund
teaches that the inner diameter of bag (32) and outer diameter
of plug (44) are equal to 1.305 inches. See Column 4, lines 30
and 53. This would create a perfect fit between the bag and
plug. The perfect fit would not cause stretching because the
inner diameter of the lip of the bag and the outer surface
diameter of the plug is equal. In contrast, stretching would
be the result of having a plug diameter greater than the inner
diameter of the lip of the bag.
Kubota teaches simple “crimping” of a bag (1) to a plug
(15). See Column 4, lines 1-5, see also figure 4. Crimping
causes folds or wrinkles. In contrast, Appellant teaches that
the stretching of his invention removes wrinkles. See
Appellant’s specification, page 6, lines 6-11. Therefore,
Kubota does not teach to stretch the lip of bag (1) to cover a
plug as claimed by Appellant.
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
10
Claims 2, 4 through 6, and 8 through 16 also require the
limitation of “a lip lies stretched over the outer surface of
the plug” based on their dependency upon claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the decision
of the Examiner rejecting claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4
throug 6, and 8 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED

MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
11
Anthony Asquith
173 Westvale Drive
Waterloo on N2T 187
Canada