Ex Parte Russegger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201813762871 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/762,871 02/08/2013 110407 7590 05/30/2018 Burris Law, PLLC 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1775 Detroit, MI 48207 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Elias RUSSEGGER 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. OlOOH-000266/US/DVC 4392 EXAMINER WARD, THOMAS JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2018 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): docketing@burrisiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ELIAS RUSSEGGER, GERHARD SCHEFBANKER, GERNOT ANTOSCH, WOLFGANG POESCHL, MARTIN WALLINGER, KEVIN PTASIENSKI, MATT KENCHEL, KENNETH FENNEWALD, and ALLEN BOLDT Appeal 2016-006593 Application 13/762,871 Technology Center 3700 Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-20. Claims 4, 11, and 15 are subject to an objection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2016-006593 Application 13/762,871 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claims 1, 5, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heater assembly comprising: a substrate; a first dielectric layer disposed over the substrate; a resistive element layer disposed over the first dielectric layer; a pair of terminal pads disposed over the first dielectric layer and in contact with the resistive element layer; a second dielectric layer disposed over the resistive element layer and not completely over the terminal pads; a preformed protective cover defining at least one aperture, the protective cover disposed over the second dielectric layer and directly secured to the substrate, wherein the aperture is disposed proximate the terminal pads; a pair of lead wires secured to the pair of terminal pads; and a lead cap assembly disposed around the pair of lead wires and secured to the protective cover, wherein the protective cover and the lead cap assembly are secured such that the layers are protected from moisture intrusion. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5-9, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable in view ofMcMillin et al. (US 2007/0278213 A2; Dec. 6, 2007) ("McMillin"), Sutorius (US 2003/0218006 Al; Nov. 27, 2003), and Schlipf (US 8,022,339 B2; Sept. 20, 2011 ). Claims 10, 12-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable in view of McMillin, Sutorius, Schlipf, and Namerikawa et al. (US 5,877,411; Mar. 2, 1999) ("Namerikawa"). 2 Appeal2016-006593 Application 13/762,871 ANALYSIS Appellants' invention relates to a "layered heater" (Spec. ,r 2), with claim 1 reciting relationships between layers and a substrate as follows: "a first dielectric layer disposed over the substrate," "a resistive element layer disposed over the first dielectric layer," and "a second dielectric layer disposed over the resistive element layer." Each of Appellants' claims also requires a protective cover "directly secured" or "secured directly" to the substrate. In the rejection of each claim, the Examiner "broadly interpreted 'directly secured' as being part of the same direct structure." Ans. 3. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in that interpretation, arguing, among other things, that the Examiner's interpretation would include a protective cover secured indirectly to the substrate. Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellants. The plain language of Appellants' claims and Appellants' Specification define relationships between the substrate, layers, and the protective cover to require physical contact between the cover and the substrate. See Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. ,r 39, Fig. 5B, and dictionary definitions). The Examiner's interpretation effectively removes the requirement of a protective cover "directly" secured to the substrate, and we therefore agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in applying that interpretation to the disclosures of McMillin and Schlipf, both of which disclose protective covers secured indirectly to a substrate. See Appeal Br. 8-9, 11-12. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1- 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-20. 3 Appeal2016-006593 Application 13/762,871 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-20. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation