Ex Parte Machamer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12751014 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121751,014 03/31/2010 David E. Machamer
24978 7590 06/21/2016
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5141.106020 9854
EXAMINER
WEEKS, GLORIA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptomail@ gbclaw. net
docket@gbclaw.net
verify@gbclaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID E. MACHAMER and THOMAS S. SLAGER
Appeal2014-002080
Application 12/751,0141
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Machamer and Thomas S. Slager ("Appellants") appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and
4--23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify "Tamarack Products, Inc." as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002080
Application 12/751,014
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below.
1. A method for affixing rigid windows of transparent
material in a continuous manner to plural folding cartons each
having at least one first fold score line thereon, the method
comprising the steps of:
providing a moving web of rigid window material in a
continuous manner;
forming a second fold score line in the moving web of
rigid window material;
cutting spaced notches along said second fold score line
in the moving web of rigid window material, wherein the step
of forming said second fold score line and cutting spaced
notches along said second fold score line includes passing the
moving web between and in contact with a rotary cutting die
and a rotary anvil feeding cylinder;
pneumatically removing and collecting notch waste
produced in the cutting of spaced notches in the moving web of
rigid window material;
changing the continuous motion of the moving web to
stop-and-go motion;
applying an adhesive in a spaced manner to the stop-and-
go moving web of rigid window material adjacent the second
fold score line therein;
cutting said stop-and-go moving web so as to form plural
individual window patches, wherein each window patch has
adhesive thereon and includes a second fold score line and at
least one notch therein;
providing plural folding cartons in a spaced, continuous
and non-interrupted manner; and
applying one or more of said window patches to each of
said folding cartons, wherein the adhesive on each of said one
or more window patches is in contact with an associated folding
carton and said second fold score line on said one or more
2
Appeal2014-002080
Application 12/751,014
window patches is aligned with a first fold score line on said
associated folding carton.
Appeal Br., Claims App. A-1-A-2.
Rejections
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-14, 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dupuy (US 4,826,004, iss. May 2,
1989), Fuller (US 5,555,786, iss. Sept. 17, 1996), and Sauerman
(US 3,572,222, iss. Mar. 23, 1971);
II. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dupuy, Fuller, Sauerman, and Nunley (US 5,087,237, iss. Feb. 11,
1992);
III. Claims 14--16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dupuy, Fuller, Sauerman, and Chesnut (US 4,205,596,
iss. June 3, 1980); and
IV. Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dupuy, Fuller, Sauerman, and Martin (US 4,545,780,
iss. Oct. 8, 1985).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner provides detailed rejections of the claims (Final Act. 2-
8 (mailed Nov. 30, 2012)), and, in the Response to Argument section of the
Answer, fully addresses each argument raised by Appellants in their Appeal
Brief. None of Appellants' arguments persuade us of Examiner error.
3
Appeal2014-002080
Application 12/751,014
Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's findings as though they were our
own, and we sustain each rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--23.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4