Ex Parte SchulteDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311988633 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/988,633 01/11/2008 Axel Schulte 54278 9676 1609 7590 09/26/2013 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 AXEL SCHULTE ____________ Appeal 2012-004066 Application 11/988,633 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 10 through 18 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of producing a fixing means. App. Br. 2. Claim 10 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 10. A method for producing a fixing means, comprising the steps of providing a support structure; Appeal 2012-004066 Application 11/988,633 2 molding stem-shaped fixing elements arranged in pairs with the fixing elements of each pair being connected by an intermediate element to form U-shaped molded fixing parts; and inserting the molded fixing parts into the support structure such that the fixing elements extend through the support structure and project from the support structure with the intermediate elements being located on the support structure by shooting the fixing parts with a shooter to join the fixing parts and the support structure. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Litchfield 1,653,052 Dec. 20, 1927 Wylde 3,527,629 Sep. 8, 1970 Eckhardt et al. (Eckhardt) 5,040,275 Aug. 20, 1991 Lightfoot 5,090,095 Feb. 25, 1992 Weber 5,384,939 Jan. 31, 1995 Appellant at page 3 of the Appeal Brief, requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s final Office action:1 I. Claims 10, 12-15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Wylde and Litchfield. 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Wylde, Litchfield, and Kallenberg and designated claim 11 as objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Ans. 4. Accordingly, the patentability of claim 11 is not subject to review before the Board. We note that the Examiner additionally withdrew a rejection of claims 10-21 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. Id. This rejection is also not before the Board for review. Appeal 2012-004066 Application 11/988,633 3 II. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Wylde, Litchfield, and Weber. III. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Wylde, Litchfield, and Lightfoot. IV. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Wylde, Litchfield, Lightfoot, and Eckhardt. OPINION Rejection I The dispositive issue for Rejection I is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combined teachings of Wylde and Litchfield would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to a method of producing a fixing means comprising a step of inserting molded fixing parts into a support structure by shooting the fixing parts with a shooter as required by the subject matter of independent claim 10? 2 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we answer in the negative and AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following. Appellant argues that Wylde merely discloses staples forced through a foundation formed by a plastic strip that does not involve shooting as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 5. 2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 10. Appellant did not present separate substantive arguments with respect to dependent claims 12- 15 and 21. App. Br. 6-7. Accordingly, claims 12-15 and 21 stand or fall together with independent claim 1. Appeal 2012-004066 Application 11/988,633 4 Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. The Examiner found that Wylde discloses U-shaped molded fixing parts and inserting the molded fixing parts into the support structure such that the fixing elements extend through the support structure and project from the support structure with the intermediate elements being located on the support structure. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner found that Wylde does not disclose the means used to insert the fixing elements into the support structure. Id. at 6. The Examiner found that Litchfield teaches a stapling mechanism which forms wire into U-shaped staples and inserts them into any suitable material at high production speeds as known. Id. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Litchfield’s device in the process of Wylde to insert U-shaped fixing elements at high speeds and in close arrangement, as taught by Litchfield. Id. Appellant further argues that Litchfield is nonanalogous and not combinable with Wylde because Lichtfield is not disclosed to be useful in forming a touch fastener of the type disclosed in the Wylde patent or in the present invention. Id. The Examiner correctly determined the claimed invention, Wylde, and Litchfield all involve methods of applying U-shaped fixing parts and are analogous. Ans. 10. Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellant’s arguments, we are of the opinion that Appellant has not successfully identified reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination. Accordingly, on this record, we affirm the rejection of claims 10, 12-15, and Appeal 2012-004066 Application 11/988,633 5 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejection I) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. Rejections II-IV The Examiner separately rejected claim 16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wylde, Litchfield, and Weber (Rejection II) (Ans. 7), claim 17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wylde, Litchfield, and Lightfoot (Rejection III) (id. at 8), and claim 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wylde, Litchfield, Lightfoot, and Eckhardt (Rejection IV) (id. at 8-9). With respect to claim 16, the Examiner found that Weber teaches it was known to provide a closing plate with a connector that facilitates attachment to an underlying structure. Id. at 7. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 9) as the argument does not address the reasons for which the Examiner relied on Weber. For claim 17, the Examiner found Lightfoot teaches injection molding of fastener elements is known. Ans. 8. Wylde discloses the support structure is made of a thermoplastic material. Wylde col. 1, ll. 19-20; col. 2, ll. 18-20. Lightfoot discloses injection molding is a well-known technique for shaping thermoplastic material. Lightfoot col. 3, ll. 37-39. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan has the skill to use injection molding to shape thermoplastic materials for a desired use. Ans. 8; see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Appellant additionally argues that Wylde does not specifically disclose a monofilament as claimed. App. Br. 10. We are again Appeal 2012-004066 Application 11/988,633 6 unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. As noted by the Examiner, Wylde discloses fasteners made in wire/filamentary form that can have stems of thermoplastic material. Ans. 8; Wylde col. 1, ll. 16-20, 60-66; col. 3, ll. 35- 37. Appellant has not adequately explained how the claimed monofilament distinguishes from Wylde’s above-noted filamentary fasteners. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-17 (Rejections II-III) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 (Rejection IV) for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 9. ORDER The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 10, 12-18, and 21 (Rejections I-IV) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation