Ex Parte Schmitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13636767 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/636,767 09/24/2012
95683 7590 07/03/2018
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wiebke Schmitz
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.
812921 7825
EXAMINER
WORRELL, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WIEBKE SCHMITZ,
DIRK GRAF AHREND,
and DENIS REIBEL
Appeal2016-008518
Application 13/636,767 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 23, 25, and 30-36. A hearing was held on June 26, 2018.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Carl Freudenberg KG.
Appeal Brief dated December 15, 2015 ("App. Br."), at 1.
Appeal2016-008518
Application 13/636,767
The claimed invention is directed to a rotational spinning method for
producing multi-component fibers. In an exemplary embodiment, a spinning
solution is fed via a hose pump into a container of an internal rotor and, at the same
time, a second spinning solution is fed via another hose pump into a container of
an external rotor. Spec. i-f 57; see also Spec. i-fi-1 64, 71. The containers rotate
around a shared axis, and the internal rotor is located inside the external rotor.
Channel nozzles extend radially outward from the internal rotor and open up into
channel nozzles of the external rotor. Together, the channel nozzles form a
spinning nozzle for the production of bi-component fibers. Spec. i-f 58; see also
Spec. i-fi-1 66, 73; Fig. 1. The Appellants disclose that "[ o ]wing to the centripetal
force, the fiber raw material ... is pressed through the channel nozzles ... and
spun into bi-component fibers that are drawn by a suction device." Spec. i-f 59; see
also Spec. i-fi-167, 74.
Representative claim 23 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
23. A method comprising:
filling a first container with a first fiber raw material and filling
a second container with a second fiber raw material, the second
container concentrically surrounding the first container relative to an
axis, at least one of the fiber raw materials including a substance
whose structure would be destroyed upon being heated for two
minutes at a temperature of 50°C and at least one of the fiber raw
materials containing a medicinal drug;
rotating each of the containers around the axis; and
discharging the first fiber raw material from the first container
solely by centripetal force through a first channel projecting radially
outward from the first container and passing through the second
container and discharging the second fiber raw material from the
second container solely by centripetal force through a second channel
2
Appeal2016-008518
Application 13/636,767
concentrically surrounding the first channel so that the first and
second fiber raw materials together form a core-shell fiber.
App. Br. 8.
Claims 23, 25, and 30-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over W oodbery2 in view of Michael et al. 3 and Strickler et al. 4, 5
B. DISCUSSION
W oodbery discloses a method and apparatus for producing conjugate micro-
denier synthetic fibers using spinning apparatus 12. Woodbery, col. 2, 11. 23-31.
The Examiner finds the method includes filling first container 90 with a first fiber
raw material and filling second container 7 4 with a second fiber raw material,
wherein second container 7 4 concentrically surrounds first container 90 relative to
an axis. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that both of the containers are
rotated around the axis, whereby the first fiber raw material is discharged from first
container 90 through first channel 102 projecting radially outward from the first
container and the second fiber raw material is discharged from second container 7 4
through outlet 100. Non-Final Act. 3.
The Appellants argue:
In Woodbery, the raw materials are pumped from containers 30
and 32 by pumps 38 and 40 so as to axially extrude the materials
through the nozzle of the spinning apparatus 12 .... While there is
some centripetal force in the spinning apparatus 12 of Woodbery
2 US 3,358,322, issued December 19, 1967 ("Woodbery").
3 US 2005/0136253 Al, published June 23, 2005 ("Michael").
4 US 2007 /0232169 Al, published October 4, 2007 ("Strickler").
5 Claims 34 and 35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on
the written description requirement in the Non-Final Office Action dated July 16,
2015 ("Non-Final Act."). Non-Final Act. 2-3. The rejection was withdrawn in the
Advisory Action dated November 27, 2015, wherein the Examiner states that
"[t]he amendments to claims 34 and 35 overcome the l 12(a) rejection in the non-
final action dated 7 /16/2 0 15."
3
Appeal2016-008518
Application 13/636,767
which holds the raw materials against the outer walls of the
distributing element 16 after it has been discharged, the raw materials
are driven in an axial direction out of the nozzle by the pumps 3 8 and
40, and therefore are not discharged solely by centripetal force, as
required by claims 23 and 30.
App. Br. 4 (emphasis added).
The Appellants' argument is persuasive of reversible error. Claim 23 recites
that the second container concentrically surrounds the first container relative to an
axis and a first channel projects radially outward from the first container, whereby
the first fiber raw material is discharged from the first container solely by
centripetal force. Claim 23 recites that a second channel concentrically surrounds
the first channel, and thus projects radially outward from the second container,
whereby the second fiber raw material is also discharged from the second container
solely by centripetal force. 6
The Examiner finds passageway 102 in W oodbery, corresponding to the
claimed first channel, begins between passageways 112 and then curves out
radially as it extends from first container 90. Non-Final Act. 3. Similarly, the
Examiner finds that outlet 100, corresponding to the claimed second channel,
curves out radially as it extends from passageways 112. Non-Final Act. 5.
We recognize that both passageway 102 and outlet 100 have a radial
component. However, the materials are discharged from passageway 102 and
outlet 100 in an axial direction and thus are not discharged solely by centripetal
force as claimed. The Examiner's reliance on Michael and Strickler in the
6 Claim 30 recites "discharging the second fiber raw material from the second
container solely by centripetal force through a second channel projecting radially
outward from the second container." App. Br. 9 (emphasis added).
4
Appeal2016-008518
Application 13/636,767
obviousness rejection on appeal does not cure this deficiency in Woodbery.
Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 23, 25, and 30-36 is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5