Ex Parte Schulte

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2006

10182369 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AXEL SCHULTE
____________

Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 29, 2006
____________

Before GARRIS, TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.

JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicant appeals the final rejection of claims 11-25, all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369

BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a process for producing an adhering
fastening element from a plastic material. The claimed invention specifies
the processes which occur in the preshaping station and the shaping station
where the adhering fastening element obtains a mushroom-shaped head.
Claim 11, as presented in the Brief, appears below:
11. A process for producing an adhering fastening element from
plastic material with a strip or sheet backing element and with a plurality of
interlocking elements on at least one side of the backing element, each of the
interlocking elements having a mushroom-shaped head component
connected to the backing element by a stalk component, the process
comprising the steps of:
in a preshaping station, feeding thermoplastic material in a pulpy,
plastic, pasty or liquid state into a gap between a pressure roller and a
shaping roller, rotating the pressure and shaping rollers to form a backing
element in the gap and to form at least stalk components extending from at
least one side of the backing element in through openings in a sieve on the
shaping roller, preshaping outer ends of the stalk components while in the
openings in the sieve by preshaping elements in the openings at a side of the
sieve remote from the pressure roller to provide preshaped outer ends of the
stalk components, and allowing the plastic material to set at least partially in
the openings in the sieve;
guiding the backing elements with the stalk components preformed
thereon in a conveying direction away from the preshaping station; and
in a shaping station located downstream of the preshaping station in
the conveying direction, shaping the preformed outer ends of the stalk
components by widening the preformed outer ends into mushroom-shaped
head components of one of different configurations by ultrasonic energy and
a shaping tool engaging the outer ends of the stalk components.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Obeda US 3,499,808 Mar. 10, 1970
MacLaughlin US 4,514,242 Apr. 30, 1985
2
Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369

Frantz US 5,658,408 Aug. 19, 1997
Parellada US 5,981,027 Nov. 9, 1999
Miller US 6,054,091 Apr. 25, 2000
Noda US 6,174,990 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Tuma US 6,627,133 B1 Sep. 30, 2003

The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
a) claims 11 and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Parellada;
b) claims 12-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Parellada in view of Obeda;
c) claims 18-19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Parellada in view of Obeda and Frantz;
d) claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parellada
in view of Obeda and MacLaughlin;
e) claim 22 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parellada
in view of Miller and Noda; and
f) claims 23-25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Parellada in view of Tuma.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior
art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and
Appellant in support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the Examiner's rejections under § 102 and § 103 are well
founded. Our reasons follow.

3
Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369

Rather than reiterate the conflicting view points advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant concerning the above noted rejections, we refer
to the Answer, mailed February 21, 2006, and to the Briefs filed January 23,
2006 and February 28, 2006.
OPINION
The rejection under § 102
Claims 11 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Parellada.1 The Examiner has found that Parellada describes
a process for producing an adhering fastening element from a plastic
material comprising a backing element that is provided with a plurality of
interlocking elements each of which has a head component that is connected
to the backing (Answer 3). The Examiner asserts that the process of
producing the fastening element of Parellada anticipates the presently
claimed invention.
Appellant argues that Parellada does not anticipate the claimed subject
matter because: (1) Parellada does not use fastener elements comprising a
stalk and a head as an adhering fastening element; (2) Parellada does not
form mushroom-shaped head components; and (3) Parellada does not
employ preshaping elements in a sieve at the side of the sieve remote from
the pressure roller to provide preshaped outer ends of the stalk components
(Br. 6).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's response as appearing on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer. We also

1 Appellant has grouped the arguments for claims 11 and 21 together. We
select claim 11 as representative of these claims.
4
Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369

note that Appellant’s arguments 1 and 2 are not directed to the process for
producing an adhering fastening element as specified by claim 11.
Regarding argument 3, Parellada employs preshaping elements in a sieve at
the side of the sieve remote from the pressure roller to provide preshaped
outer ends of the stalk components (see Figure 1).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has acknowledged that the
products of Parellada are different from the products of the claimed
invention. As such, the process of Parellada cannot anticipate the subject
matter of claim 11 (Reply Br. 2). This argument is not persuasive. The
Parellada reference, as correctly identified by the Examiner, provides a
process that includes a preshaping station and a shaping station that includes
all the process limitations of the claimed invention. It is noted that Parellada
discloses the additional step of including yarn which is subsequently
fastened into place by deforming the head portion of the stalk into a
mushroom-shaped fastener. (See para. bridging cols. 3 and 4). This
additional step is not precluded by claim 11.
Appellant argues that the description of the preshaping of the outer
ends of the stalk distinguishes the claimed invention from that of Parellada.
We do not agree. The stalk portions of Parellada like the presently claimed
invention are formed through the use of a sieve. The sieve and pressure
roller are used to provide a shaping of the outer edges of the stalk
component that is suitable for subsequent shaping into a mushroom type
fastener. (Note Figs. 6-8). The claimed subject matter does not preclude the
outer end of the stalk from having a cylindrical shape after preshaping.
Appellant's arguments regarding the use of ultrasonic energy to form
the mushroom-shaped head components are not persuasive because the
5
Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369

Parellada reference discloses that ultrasonic energy is suitable for this
purpose. (note col. 4).
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
Now we turn to the obviousness rejections.
The rejections under § 103
The Appellant primarily argues dependent claims 12-25 as a group.
Appellant, Brief page 8, asserts that the claims are allowable for the reasons
presented in the discussion of claim 11. Appellant further identifies some of
the characteristics of the dependent claims and concludes that this subject
matter is not anticipated or rendered obvious. Appellant's arguments are not
persuasive for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. The Examiner has
cited several additional prior art references which have been indicated as
teaching or suggesting the claimed subject matter.
Appellant has argued that the Obeda, Frantz, and MacLaughlin
references are not properly combinable with Parellada because these
references are not analogous to Parellada (Br. 9-10).
The Examiner has cited each of these references for various aspects of
Parellada such as the shape of the sonotrode and/or counterhold elements of
the shaping tool (Obeda and MacLaughlin) and the Frantz reference for
describing the amplitude suitable for welding conditions. (See Answer, 4-5).
Thus, we determine that the cited references are properly combinable with
Parellada because the references are pertinent to the various aspects of
Parellada and the claimed invention
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in the Answer,
it is our determination that the Examiner has established a prima facie case
6
Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369

of obviousness with respect to the argued claims under consideration which
has not been successfully rebutted by Appellant. Therefore, the rejections
under review are affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, having
considered Appellant's arguments, based on the totality of the record, we
determine that the Examiner has established prima facie of cases of
unpatentability under §§ 102 and 103 which have not been adequately
rebutted by Appellant. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been 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)(iv)(2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

Mark S. Bicks
ROYLANCE ABRAMS BERDO & GOODMAN
Suite 600
1300 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

7