Ex Parte Sano

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 8, 2010

10354965 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/354,965 01/31/2003 Yoshiaki Sano 056272.52000US 8307
23911 7590 07/08/2010
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
COLE, ELIZABETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOSHIAKI SANO
____________

Appeal 2009-013637
Application 10/354,965
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 5, 8-10, and 17-25.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 17 is illustrative:

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-013637
Application 10/354,965

17. A method of manufacturing a woody decorative item
comprising the steps of:

providing a sliced veneer;

sequentially adhering an unwoven fabric and a woven fabric on the
back of the sliced veneer with pressure to fabricate a sliced veneer sheet;

setting the sliced veneer sheet in a mold;

supplying a synthetic resin on a first side of the woven fabric of the
sliced veneer sheet in the mold to form a base thereon; and

pressing the base against the first side of the woven fabric of the
sliced veneer sheet for integration;

wherein the step of sequentially adhering the unwoven fabric and the
woven fabric on the back of the sliced veneer with pressure to fabricate the
sliced veneer sheet includes the steps of:

placing the unwoven fabric on a first bedplate;

adhering the sliced veneer to the unwoven fabric with an adhesive by
a first hot-pressing process;

removing the unwoven fabric with the sliced veneer adhered thereto
from the first bedplate;

placing the sliced veneer with the unwoven fabric adhered thereto on
a second bedplate;

adhering the woven fabric to the unwoven fabric with an adhesive by
a second hot-pressing process, wherein in the second hot-pressing process
the adhesive is disposed between a second side of the woven fabric that
faces the unwoven fabric and no adhesive is present on the first side of the
woven fabric that is opposed to the second side; and

removing the second bedplate from the sliced veneer.

2
Appeal 2009-013637
Application 10/354,965

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Shoji 4,824,069 Apr. 25, 1989
Menke 5,019,199 May 28, 1991
Tsuda 5,662,760 Sep. 02, 1997
Muller (Muller ‘982) 6,494,982 B1 Dec. 17, 2002
Tsutomu (CA ‘407) CA 761407A June 20, 1967
Nishio (JP ‘722) JP 05038722 A Feb. 19, 1993
Verfahren (DE ‘021) DE 4206021 A1 Sep. 02, 1993
Muller (Muller ‘877) EP 1060877 A2 Dec. 20, 2000

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of making a
woody decorative item comprising the steps of sequentially adhering an
unwoven fabric and a woven fabric on the back of a sliced veneer and
supplying a synthetic resin on a first side of the woven fabric that is opposite
to the side contacting the unwoven fabric. The woven fabric is adhered to
the unwoven fabric with an adhesive while the veneer is adhered to a bed
plate with a double-sided adhesive tape. No adhesive is present on the first
side of the woven fabric opposite to the side adhered to the unwoven fabric.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 5, 8-10, 17, and 23 over the Admitted Prior Art
(APA) in view of Menke, CA ‘407, and Muller ‘877,
(b) claims 18-20 over the APA in view of Menke, CA ‘407,
Muller ‘877, and DE ‘021,
(c) claims 21 and 22 over APA in view of Menke, CA ‘407,
Muller ‘877, and Shoji,
(d) claim 24 over the APA in view of Menke, CA ‘407, Muller
‘877, and JP ‘722, and
3
Appeal 2009-013637
Application 10/354,965

(e) claim 25 over the APA in view of Menke, CA ‘407, Muller
‘877, and Tsuda.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as her
cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in
sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
The APA involves making a woody decorative item by using an
adhesive to adhere an unwoven fabric to the surface of a bed plate and
adhering a sliced veneer to the unwoven fabric, after which the unwoven
fabric is removed from the bed plate and a plastic base is integrated to the
unwoven fabric by either hot pressing, cold pressing, or vacuum-forming
processes. The process of the APA does not adhere a woven fabric to the
unwoven fabric.
Menke, however, evidences that it was known in the art to make a
woody decorative item by adhering two fabric layers to a sliced veneer
before integrating a plastic base sheet. Menke teaches that a firm joint can
be produced by adhesively joining a second layer of fabric or non-woven
material to the veneer (col. 2, ll. 59-62). Although Menke does not
explicitly state that the fabric of the second layer is woven, we agree with
the Examiner that the disclosure of “fabric or non-woven layer” would have
suggested that the fabric other than the non-woven layer is a woven fabric.
To conclude otherwise would reduce the Menke disclosure to one of
redundancy. Also, we agree with the Examiner that CA ‘407 underscores
4
Appeal 2009-013637
Application 10/354,965

the obviousness of bonding woven fabric to decorative wood panel.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere a second,
woven fabric to the unwoven fabric of the woody decorative item of the
APA.
Appellant urges that the applied prior art does not teach no adhesive
being present on the surface of the woven fabric that is pressed against the
plastic base for integration (Br. 11, first full para.). However, Appellant has
not refuted the Examiner’s reasonable rationale that Menke uses the second
fabric layer to take advantage of its large surface area for bonding and,
therefore, does not teach covering the textile surface with an adhesive so that
the surface area of the textile fabric can facilitate a strong bond between the
veneer laminate and the base (Ans. 10, first full para.). Menke does not
disclose using an adhesive on the second fabric layer before spraying the
thermoplastic base thereon. We find no merit in Appellant’s argument that
the APA process of using an adhesive to adhere an unwoven fabric to a bed
plate leads to the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
necessarily have to use an adhesive on the second woven fabric of Menke,
particularly since Menke does not teach the use of such an adhesive.
Moreover, we are convinced that if residue adhesive on the unwoven
fabric of the APA presented a problem for bonding the base layer, both the
problem and its solution would have been readily apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art, namely, either bonding the wood veneer to the bed
plate or using a double-sided adhesive tape to adhere the unwoven fabric to
the bed plate. Appellant has apprised us of no reason for why it would have
been non-obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere a woven
5
Appeal 2009-013637
Application 10/354,965

fabric to a veneer/unwoven fabric laminate while the veneer is adhered to a
bed plate.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
6