Ex Parte Metten

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13097177 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/097,177 04/29/2011 Hans Josef Metten 28201-43 6009
46591 7590 01/04/2017
NF.YNF.N PR T TFT T T C (TTRFFNVTT T F OFFICE EXAMINER
P.O. BOX 10648
GREENVILLE, SC 29603
DEMUREN, BABAJIDE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
PWEAVER@NEXSENPRUET.COM
USPatent@NexsenPruet.com
KSTEADING@NEXSENPRUET.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS JOSEF METTEN
Appeal 2014-006231
Application 13/097,1771
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 26, 28, and 35—43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Klym (US 4,854,103, iss. Aug. 8, 1989),
Potvin (US 5,845,448, iss. Dec. 8, 1998), and Phipps (US 3,256,657, iss.
June 21, 1966). Claims 1—25 and 27 have been cancelled and claims 29-34
and 44—68 have been withdrawn. See Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, “Hans Josef Metten is the real party in
interest.” Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-006231
Application 13/097,177
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 26, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
26. A wall system having wall elements of various sizes and
formats on which the wall elements are arranged thereabove can
be laid, wherein the wall elements have two spaced-apart spacer
bodies per wall element and two panels, wherein the spacer
bodies and the panels are connected together by means of
adhesives or binders, characterized in that the spacer bodies are
configured in a cuboidal manner and are oriented perpendicularly
to the wall system, in that the spacer bodies are arranged in a
manner protruding over at least one edge of the panels in such a
way that the panels are spaced apart when corresponding wall
elements are joined onto one another, and in that at least one seal
is provided and is arranged between edges of the panel that are
arranged one above the other and is formed in a strip-like
manner.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Klym discloses a wall system having wall
elements (i.e., blocks), which include two spaced-apart spacer bodies 16 and
two panels 13. Final Act. 2 (citing Klym, Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6). The Appellant
points out that each of Klym’s blocks have a monolithic integrally molded
body. See Br. 8 (citing Klym, col. 1,11. 6—9, 53—59; col. 2,11. 9-11; col. 3,
11. 21—24). Put simply, each of Klym’s blocks are made of a one-piece
construction of masonry material, which includes two spaced-apart spacer
bodies 16 and two panels 13. The Examiner also finds that Klym fails to
disclose “spacer bodies connected to the panels by means of adhesives or
binders,” as required by claim 26. Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2014-006231
Application 13/097,177
To remedy this deficiency the Examiner finds that Potvin teaches a
masonry block assembly, which uses an adhesive to affix ends 22 of
coupling members (i.e., spacer bodies) 20 with the inner surface of face
members (i.e., panels) 11. See id.', Potvin, col. 4,11. 11—18, Figs. 2, 5.
However, as pointed out by the Appellant, Potvin’s spacer bodies 20 are
made of non-masonry materials (e.g., a rigid non-masonry, synthetic
material) and panels 11 are made of masonry materials. Br. 9 (citing Potvin,
col. 1,11. 5-8; col. 4,11. 7-9, 57-59).
The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the adhesive of Potvin to the system of
Klym to provide a rigid and integral block absent any unexpected results.”
Final Act. 3. However, the Appellant persuasively argues that the
Examiner’s rejection lacks adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to
support the conclusion of obviousness because there is a lack of an
‘“objective reason’ to incorporate the adhesive teachings of Potvin, which
are specifically directed to adhesive used on non-masonry traverse webs
. . . , into the blocks of Klym, which are specifically directed to masonry
traverse webs that are integrally formed with the sides.” Br. 10—11. In other
words, Potvin does not teach using an adhesive to affix masonry materials
together. And, because the Examiner relies on Klym’s blocks, specifically
the masonry materials of Klym’s spacer body and panel, Potvin’s teaching
of using an adhesive to affix a non-masonry spacer body and a masonry
panel cannot be applied to the masonry materials of Klym’s spacer body and
panel without an adequate explanation and/or technical reasoning that
explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied an adhesive
to affix the masonry materials of Klym’s spacer body and panel.
3
Appeal 2014-006231
Application 13/097,177
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
26. We likewise do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 28 and 35—
43, which rely on the inadequately supported reasoning discussed above.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26, 28, and
35—43.
REVERSED
4