Ex Parte Octau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14040154 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/040,154 09/27/2013 Jean-Luc Octau
24126 7590 09/27/2018
ST. ONGE STEW ARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
986 BEDFORD STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06905-5619
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
03769-P0078A 4912
EXAMINER
CIGNA, JACOB JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
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):
patentpto@ssjr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN-LUC OCTAU and JACKY LASNIER
Appeal2017-008145
Application 14/040, 154 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-9 and 16. Claims 10-15 and 17 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Albea Le Treport S.A.S. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008145
Application 14/040, 154
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for producing a pump body for the dispensing
of a fluid product, said body having a casing provided with an
inlet orifice for said product which is provided with a valve
comprising a ball retained in a cage in order to be displaced
between a closed position and an open position of said orifice,
said method providing for:
- moulding the casing by forming, on the interior of a
peripheral wall surmounting the inlet orifice, ribs in relief which
extend axially by being spaced angularly, each of said ribs
having two lateral faces which join together along an internal
edge in order to delimit the cage between said edges, as well as
an upper end having a free upper surface;
- introducing the ball into the cage below the upper ends;
- plastically deforming the upper ends in order to form
visors extending radially towards the interior of the casing, said
visors being arranged in order to imprison the ball in the cage;
said method being characterised in that the ribs are formed
so that their free surface extends from one lateral face to the other
by forming a dome having a top, with the plastic deformation of
the upper ends being carried out by causing a matrix to bear
against said tops then via axial displacement of said matrix on a
stroke for crushing domes.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Japanese Patent Document JP 2826847 B2, Nov. 18,
1998 (the "'847 Reference") and General Design Principles for DuPont
Engineering Polymers, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 2000, at 6-
14 ("DuPont").
2
Appeal2017-008145
Application 14/040, 154
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a method for producing a pump body that includes
molding a casing by forming ribs having an upper end with a free upper
surface that "extends from one lateral face to the other by forming a dome
having a top." Appellants' Figure 2c, copied below, depicts a pump body
with a rib having dome consistent with the claim language.
Fig .. 2c
Appellants' Figure 2c is a cut-off perspective of a pump body depicting ribs
14 with domes 23.
The Examiner's rejection cites the '847 Reference for the majority of
claim 1, including a pump body having ribs with a plastically deformable
upper section. Final Act. 3--4. With reference to the structure labeled 1 Oa in
the '847 Reference's Figure 3, copied below, the Examiner acknowledges
that the '847 Reference teaches ribs with projecting rims instead of domes.
Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2017-008145
Application 14/040, 154
Figure 3 of the '84 7 Reference
Figure 3 of the '84 7 Reference depicts a partial cross-section of a pump
body with ribs 10 and projecting rims 1 Oa.
According to the Examiner, DuPont teaches general design principles
for molding plastic parts, including the principle that sharp edges should be
avoided in favor of filleted or radiused edges. See Ans. 10-11. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
to apply DuPont's teachings to modify the sharp edges disclosed in the '847
Reference to have dome shapes as claimed. Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 12-14.
Appellants argue (see Reply Br. 2), and we agree, that DuPont does
not teach or suggest ribs with a domed top, as claimed. Although DuPont's
teachings might have motivated a person of ordinary skill to modify ribs
with sharp edges to have filleted or radiused edges, we disagree with the
conclusion that such modifications would have resulted in ribs with domed
tops, as claimed. In other words, DuPont might teach or suggest ribs with
4
Appeal2017-008145
Application 14/040, 154
rounded edges instead of sharp edges, but DuPont's teachings regarding the
edges of molded ribs do not reasonably suggest a dome shape on top of a
molded rib.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2-9.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 16.
REVERSED
5