Ex Parte RUSSEGGER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

13762871 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

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