Ex Parte Mott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2013

10839204 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/839,204 05/06/2004 Laurence Mott 8688.006.USDV00 6428
74217 7590 06/12/2013
NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO
1875 Eye Street
Eleventh Floor
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
TOLIN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LAURENCE MOTT and MONA AXMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-009722
Application 10/839,204
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009722
Application 10/839,204

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 76 as
unpatentable over Persson (WO 98/50207, published 12 Nov. 1998) in view
of Hoedl (US 5,075,057, issued 24 Dec. 1991) and further in view of Kelley
(US 3,208,901, issued 28 Sept. 1965) or Pieters (GB 2 324 982 A, published
11 Nov. 1998) or Kobayashi (JP 98-29265, published 9 July 1998; as
translated) and of dependent claims 78-80, 82, 93-100, 102, and 103 as
unpatentable over these references alone or further in view of other prior art.
A hearing for this appeal was held 4 June 2013. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a process for the manufacture of a floor board
having a decorative printed surface comprising providing a core consisting
essentially of cured resin particles bonded together with an adhesive and
direct printing a decor directly onto the upper surface of the core (claim 76).
A copy of sole independent claim 76 taken from the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief is set forth below:
76. A process for the manufacturing of a floor board
having a decorative printed surface comprising:
providing a core consisting essentially of cured resin
panicles, bonded together with an adhesive, the core comprising
an upper surface; and
direct printing a decor directly onto the upper surface of
the core: and
providing at least two wear layers on the printed core,
wherein at least one of the wear layers comprises a cellulose
impregnated with a polymeric resin or lacquer; the wear layer
further comprising abrasion resistant particles selected from the
group consisting of alpha-aluminum oxide, silicon carbide and
silicon oxide;
Appeal 2012-009722
Application 10/839,204

3
installing the floor board as part of a floor.

Appellants do not present separate arguments directed with
meaningful specificity to the dependent claims under rejection including the
separately rejected dependent claims (App. Br. 5-6). Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with sole independent claim 76.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action (FOA mailed 18 October 2011) and the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. mailed 20 April 2012). The comments below are
added for emphasis.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been
obvious to provide Persson with a core consisting essentially of cured resin
particles bonded with an adhesive as claimed in view of Hoedl (FOA 3-4).
Appellants concede that "Hoedl does teach at column 3, lines 52-67 and
column 4, lines 1-3 the formation of the 'binder'" (Reply Br. para. bridging
5-6). However, Appellants argue that "such binder is always mixed 'with at
least one additive material selected from reinforcing materials and fillers' see
column 3, lines 30-35[,] [s]ee also column 4, lines 48-51" (id.).
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because Hoedl teaches that,
"[w]hen a product of low tensile strength is required, e.g. for use as a floor
tile, then fillers alone may be used as the additive material, e.g. additional
cured thermoset powder" (col. 4, ll. 55-58). Therefore, contrary to
Appellants' implicit contention, the additive material disclosed by Hoedl
includes cured resin particles (i.e., powders) which fall within the claim 76
limitation under review.
Appellants also disagree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would
have been obvious to provide the Persson/Hoedl process discussed above
Appeal 2012-009722
Application 10/839,204

4
with the claim 76 step of direct printing a decor directly onto the upper
surface of the core in view of Kelley or Pieters or Kobayashi (FOA 4).
Specifically, Appellants argue that "[n]one of the applied references, in any
possible combination, teaches direct printing" (App. Br. 3).
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Pieters expressly teaches "screen
printing directly on to the surface of a wood-based material" (1:29-30).
According to Appellants, Pieters does not print directly onto the upper
surface of the core as claimed because, prior to printing, "Pieters applies a
'white [layer which serves] to seal the surface and cover the original color of
the MDF' (Pieters, page 4, lines 20-22)" (Reply Br. 4; original underlining
removed). However, this disclosure of applying a white layer is prefaced by
Pieters' statement that "[a] preferred embodiment of the invention will now
be described in more detail by way of example only" (3:9-10). Particularly
in light of this statement, we agree with the Examiner that the application of
a white layer in Pieters is optional (Ans. sentence bridging 6-7).
We also agree with the Examiner's interpretation of "direct printing"
in claim 76 as including transfer printing (e.g., as indisputably taught by
Kobayashi (see Reply Br. 4)) in view of the Specification disclosure in
original claim 53 of "applying a decor on an upper side of the board by
printing the decor directly on the surface via transfer printing" (Ans. 5).
Appellants argue that this claim interpretation is improper but do not address
their original claim 53 disclosure (Reply Br. 2-3). As a consequence,
Appellants fail to explain why the Examiner's interpretation of claim 76 is
not reasonable and consistent with the Specification disclosure of original
claim 53.

Appeal 2012-009722
Application 10/839,204

5
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

kmm