Ex Parte MARC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13564893 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/564,893 08/02/2012
27910 7590 09/27/2018
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
1201 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 2900
KANSAS CITY, MO 64106-2150
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MICHEL MARC
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.
0801089-0026 1797
EXAMINER
V ARGOT, MATHIEU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
patent@stinson.com
USpatent2@stinson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHEL MARC
Appeal2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
May 6, 2016 decision finally rejecting claims 24--27, 29--39, 41-50, and 52-
58. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to a process for flow molding an
article from two or more plastic materials, each having different molding
1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Novation iQ LLC (Appeal
Br. 1).
Appeal 2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
temperatures (Spec. ,r,r 3, 4). According to the Specification, the described
flow molding method makes it unnecessary to fabricate separate plastic
layers from two or more layers of different plastic materials and
subsequently bond them (id. at ,r,r 3, 9).
Claims 36 and 48 are representative and are reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added):
36. A method of providing a plurality of differentformable
materials capable of being di electrically heated in a mold to
their respective molding temperatures during a single heating
cycle, comprising:
selecting a plurality of formable materials each of which
has a molding temperature, wherein each formable material
and associated molding temperature comprise one of (i) a
thermoplastic and a temperature at which the thermoplastic
melts and (ii) a thermoset and a temperature at which the
thermoset is cured;
for each of the formable materials, calculating a molding
time for an entire mass of the formable material to reach its
molding temperature when all of the formable materials are
dielectrically heated in the mold;
selecting the one of the formable materials with the
shortest molding time as a reference material whereby the
remaining formable materials each comprise a non-reference
material;
for each non-reference material: (i) calculating a
required power factor that will allow an entire mass of the
non-reference material to reach its molding temperature in
the molding time of the reference material when the
reference material and all of the non-reference materials
are dielectrically heated in the mold; (ii) calculating an
amount of an additive to be mixed with the non-reference
material to obtain the required power factor; and (ii) mixing
the calculated amount of the additive with the non-reference
material; and
2
Appeal 2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
providing the reference material and each non-reference
material with its respective additive.
48. A method of providing at least two differentformable
materials capable of being di electrically heated in a mold to
their respective molding temperatures during a single heating
cycle, comprising:
selecting a first formable material having a first molding
temperature, wherein the first formable material and
associated first molding temperature comprise one of (i) a
thermoplastic and a temperature at which the thermoplastic
melts and (ii) a thermoset and a temperature at which the
thermoset is cured;
selecting a second formable material having a second
molding temperature that is different than the first molding
temperature of the first moldable material, wherein the
second formable material and associated second molding
temperature comprise one of (i) a thermoplastic and a
temperature at which the thermoplastic melts and (ii) a
thermoset and a temperature at which the thermoset is
cured;
mixing an additive with the second formable material,
wherein the additive is provided in an amount that results in
an entire mass of the second formable material with the
additive having a molding time when dielectrically heated
with the first formable material in the mold that is
substantially the same as a molding time of an entire mass of
the first formable material when dielectrically heated with
the second formable material in the mold; and
providing the first formable material and the second
formable material with the additive.
Appeal Br. 25-26, 27-28 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal 2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, and 58 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weisman. 2
(2) Claims 24--27, 29--39, 41-50, and 52-58 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weisman, either alone or in view of
Marc. 3
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant's
contentions as set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we determine that
Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in any of the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C § 103(a) in the Final
Office Action at pages 2--4 (mailed May 6, 2016). We sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weisman and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Weisman, either alone or in view of Marc,
essentially for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer (Final Act. 2--4, Ans. 2-9). We add the following
for emphasis.
Some of Appellant's arguments focus on whether Weisman discloses
a mold structure that is capable of heating an entire mass of vinyl resin and
polyurethane foam to each of their respective molding temperatures, as
allegedly required by claim 48 (see, e.g., Reply Br. 2--4). Furthermore,
Appellant argues that Weisman, either alone or in view of Marc, does not
disclose or suggest each of the claimed calculating steps recited in claims 24
2 Weisman, GB 1,097,009, published Dec. 29, 1967.
3 Marc, US 4,441,876, issued Apr. 10, 1984.
4
Appeal 2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
and 36 (see, e.g., id. at 4---6). We limit our discussion to claims 36 and 48,
which we select as representative of the claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Independent claim 24 stands or falls with claim 36;
dependent claims 25-27, 29-35, 37-39, 41--47, 49, 50, and 52-58 stand or
fall with each of their respective independent claims.
Appellant contends that Weisman cannot anticipate claim 48 because
Weisman's polyurethane foam layer 13 cannot reach its melting temperature
in the absence of a mold structure (Appeal Br. 14). Rather, Appellant argues
that polyurethane foam layer 13 "is merely softened in the Weisman press to
enable bonding with the trim layer 12 along the designated embossing lines"
(id.).
We find, however, that claim 48 defines the method step of providing
at least two different formable materials in functional language, indicating
that the provided formable materials must only be capable of reaching their
molding temperatures. We agree with the Examiner that claim 48 does not
require any molding structure (Ans. 7). Absent any such requirement,
Appellant's arguments fail to identify reversible error in the Examiner's
findings that the claimed two different formable materials read on
Weisman's polyurethane foam layer 13 and trim layer 12 (see id. at 2--4, 7-
8).
With respect to the obviousness rejection, there is no dispute that
Weisman does not explicitly teach any calculating steps (Ans. 8; Appeal Br.
16). However, Appellant disputes the Examiner's findings that each of the
claimed calculating steps are either inherent in Weisman's disclosure or
obvious in view ofWeisman's and Marc's teachings (Appeal Br. 15-18;
Reply Br. 4---6).
5
Appeal 2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
With respect to the Examiner's findings regarding Weisman alone,
Appellant relies on the same arguments advanced above alleging that
Weisman is distinguished from claim 36, which requires a molding structure
(see, e.g., Appeal Br. 16-17). These arguments are not persuasive for the
reasons set forth above and in the Examiner's Answer.
Appellant further argues that to calculate the molding time of the
formable materials, "one must consider the current passing through the mold
and the first and second formable materials (among other factors)" (id. at
17). Appellant contends that a calculation of the required power factor must
also account for such a current passing through the mold itself (id.).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive.
As the Examiner finds, "Marc teaches equation 12C[,] which relates
heating time of a material under a dielectric field to power factor and
dielectric constant of the material to be heated, as well as voltage applied
and frequency" (Ans. 8). We note that Marc discloses in equation 30 a
consideration of the current passing through the mold and the first and
second formable materials A and B (see Marc 9: 12-20, Fig. 3
(acknowledging that "current will have to flow in each [uneven molding]
section[ s] a and /J to provide even heat throughout the material A which is
the plastic material being formed"). Thus, the Examiner has made a
reasoned finding that the applied prior art considered the current passing
through the mold and the first and second formable materials.
Therefore, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's findings and conclusions that: (i) Weisman teaches providing or
selecting materials capable of reaching their molding temperatures at the
same time when heated in a dielectric mold and (ii) the claimed calculating
6
Appeal 2017-010385
Application 13/564,893
steps are either inherent or obvious over Weisman alone or obvious in view
of Marc's teachings (see Answer 6).
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, and 58
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Weisman.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 24--27, 29--39, 41-50, and 52-58
under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weisman, either alone or in view
of Marc.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7