Ex Parte MARCDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201813564893 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation