Ex Parte Olsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

13092347 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/092,347 04/22/2011
45482 7590 04/26/2016
PAULEY ERICKSON & KOTTIS
2800 W. HIGGINS ROAD
SUITE 365
HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60169
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert C. Olsen
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.
ITW-60220 6368
EXAMINER
NEWAY,BLAINE GIRMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3788
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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 NORIYUKI MIYOSHI
Appeal2014-004019
Application 13/092,347 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9, 10, and 12-16. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is Illinois Tool
Works Inc., the assignee of the present application." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004019
Application 13/092,347
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 10,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
10. A generally continuous string of container carriers, each
container carrier for utilizing a plurality of containers, the
generally continuous string of container carriers comprising:
a flexible web forming a plurality of container receiving
apertures arranged in longitudinal rows and transverse ranks
defining a single container carrier, wherein each container
receiving aperture in an inner rank includes a different length
than each container receiving aperture in an outer rank, each
container receiving aperture including a generally arcuate base
along an outer edge of the flexible web and a pair of concave
sides that taper toward a center of the flexible web;
a dividing aperture formed only at an outer longitudinal
extremity of each container receiving aperture of the outer rank
between each adjacent single container carrier, wherein the
generally continuous string of container carriers is foldable
along the dividing aperture; and
a carton wherein the generally continuous string of
container carriers are fan folded \'l1ithin the carton.
Rejections
Claims 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olsen (US 6, 170,652 B 1, iss. Jan. 9, 2001 ), Smith
(US 3,778,096, iss. Dec. 11, 1973), and Slaters (US 6,068, 125, iss. May 30,
2000).
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olsen, Smith, Green Barg (US 3,917,276, iss. Nov. 4,
197 5), and Slaters.
2
Appeal2014-004019
Application 13/092,347
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to a container carrier( s) that
include a flexible web forming a plurality of container receiving apertures
arranged in longitudinal rows and transverse ranks. See Appeal Br., Claims
App. Moreover, the transverse ranks include an inner rank and outer rank,
where "a dividing aperture [is] formed only at an outer longitudinal
extremity of each container receiving aperture of the outer rank." See
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that the claimed "dividing aperture" reads on
Smith's teaching of a slot, slit, or opening 28. See Final Act. 3, Ans. 3.
Notably, the Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Olsen, Smith, or
Green Barg for the location of the claimed dividing aperture. The Appellant
disagrees with the Examiner's finding and points out that Smith includes
slits 28 and 30, which are located between each container-accommodating
aperture 18. See Appeal Br. 6-7; see also id. at 5. We agree with the
Appellant.
Smith's Figure 1 depicts unit 10, which includes ten containers 12
supported by a plastic carrier strip 16 having ten container-accommodating
apertures 18. See Smith, col. 2, 11. 2-16. Figures 1 and 2 depict a six-pack
portion of unit 10 by use of bracket A, which includes six container-
accommodating apertures 18. See id. at col. 2, 11. 49-53. Notably,
openings 28 are formed at the outer rank(s) of six-pack portion (bracket A)
and openings 30 are formed between the inner and outer ranks of six-pack
portion (bracket A). See id. at col. 2, 1. 49---col. 3, 1. 28. Despite the fact that
openings 28 are larger than openings 30, both openings are used to separate
the transverse ranks of unit 10. See id. As such, openings 28 are not the
3
Appeal2014-004019
Application 13/092,347
only dividing apertures associated with either unit 10 or six-pack portion
(bracket A). Further, we note that the Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to have provided the
outer longitudinal extremity of each container receiving
aperture of the outer rank of Olsen, a dividing aperture, for the
predictable result of easily manufacturing and handling multiple
carriers, and to facilitate the ease with which a carrier strip may
be separated into six-pack units as taught by Smith in col. 3,
lines 11-16.
Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). However, the Examiner's reasoning that a
carrier strip may be separated into six-pack units as taught by Smith does
not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have foregone the
inclusion of openings 30 along with openings 28 to separate a six-pack unit
into smaller packs, e.g., three two-pack units. As such, based on the
Examiner's findings and reasoning we determine that the Appellant's
argument is persuasive.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of: independent
claim 1, and depending claims 2-5 and 9, as unpatentable over Olsen, Smith,
Green Barg, and Slaters; and independent claim 10, and depending claims
12-16, as unpatentable over Olsen, Smith, and Slaters.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9, 10,
and 12-16.
REVERSED
4