Ex parte NUNES

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 1998

08529228 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 15, 1995.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BRENDON G. NUNES
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,2281
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and STAAB
and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 16 and 21 through 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. No other claims are pending in the application.
Appellant’s invention relates to a craft package having a
pair of package portions 11 and 14 which form a container. At
Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,228
2
least one of the package portions is a mold having a mold cavity
or interior 12, as it is called in the claims, for receiving a
moldable material. According to claim 1, a package of the
moldable material is disposed in the interior of container.
According to claim 9, the only other independent claim on appeal,
the moldable material is of the activatable type and is disposed
in the container in its non-activated form. In use, the craft
package is opened to access the moldable material in the
container. The moldable material is then dispensed into the mold
cavity to mold a three-dimensional object. According to claim 1,
the object is an instrument face (e.g., a clock face 13).
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellant’s
brief.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness in support of his rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103:
Graber 3,029,936 Apr. 17, 1962
Siefert 4,720,820 Jan. 19, 1988
Grupe 5,121,835 Jun. 16, 1992
Dietterich et al. 5,413,472 May 9, 1995
(Dietterich)
Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,228
3
Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10 and 12 through 16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dietterich in view of Siefert, claims 7 and 11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dietterich in
view of Siefert and Graber and claims 21 through 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dietterich in view of Siefert and Grupe. Reference is made to the
examiner’s answer for details of these rejections.
In support of his rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through
10 and 12 through 16, the examiner relies on the Siefert patent
merely for a teaching of a molded clock face. In light of this
teaching, he concludes in substance that it would have been
obvious to configure Dietterich’s molding cavities to mold three-
dimensional instrument faces.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejections of the
appealed claims cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,228
4
Even if it is assumed arguendo that Dietterich’s mold
holders 12 and 14 together with their associated mold inserts 22
and 24 form some sort of container in the closed condition shown
in Figure 1 of the patent drawings, the examiner has made no
finding that Dietterich discloses (a) the concept of disposing a
package of the moldable material in such a container to meet the
limitations of claim 1 or (b) the concept of disposing an
activatable moldable material in its non-activated form in such a
container to meet the limitations of claim 9. Based on our review
of the cited references, we fail to find any teaching or
suggestion of these features in Dietterich or in any of the other
cited references. As a result, the examiner has failed to provide
the necessary factual basis to support his rejections. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,228
5
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH, Senior)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Lawrence J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2718
Application 08/529,228
6
NIXON & VANDERHYE
1100 North Glebe Road
8th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201-4714