Ex Parte Schutz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

11316225 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte UDO SCHUTZ
____________________

Appeal 2010-006000
Application 11/316,225
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
NEIL A. SMITH Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006000
Application 11/316,225

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roesing (US
6,145,694; iss. Nov. 14, 2000) and Krishnakumar (US 4,108,324, iss. Aug.
22, 1978).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The Invention
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is reproduced
below:
1. A drum of thermoplastic synthetic material, the drum
comprising a drum wall and an upper head and a lower bottom,
a circumferentially extending carrying and transport ring
arranged on the drum wall in the vicinity of the upper head of
the drum, at least one bunghole connection sleeve arranged in a
trough-shaped indentation of the upper head in a rim area
thereof, and a stiffening hump extending integrally upwardly
from the bottom section of the indentation of the upper head
between the carrying and transport ring and the bunghole
connection sleeve, wherein a stiffening bead is integrally
formed on an inner side of the carrying and transport ring in the
vicinity of the bunghole connection sleeve so as to oppose the
stiffening hump.

OPINION
The Examiner found that Roesing discloses a drum as called for in
claim 1 except the stiffening bead. Ans. 3. The Examiner concluded that it

1 Though not explicitly noted in the Answer, we presume that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite was withdrawn due to Appellant’s amendment. See
Ans. 2; Br. 6; Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2008, at 2.
Appeal 2010-006000
Application 11/316,225

3
would have been obvious to modify Roesing’s drum to include a stiffening
bead (rib 24), as taught by Krishnakumar, on an inside of the transportation
ring (peripherally extending collar 58) “in order to increase the stability of
an area subject to increased operational stress so as to obviate plastic
deformation or failure.” Id.
Appellant acknowledges that Krishnakumar’s ribs 24 reinforce the
bottom structure 16 of bottle 10 against high internal pressure.2 Br. 8-9.
However, Appellant contends that “[t]he geometry of the bottom 16 of the
bottle 10 is in no way comparable with the geometry of the bottom 4 of the
barrel 1 of the presently claimed invention.” Br. 9. Appellant’s comparison
is nonresponsive because the Examiner proposes to add a stiffening bead (rib
24), as taught by Krishnakumar, to the inside of the transportation ring
(peripherally extending collar 58) of Roesing’s drum, not to modify the
bottom of Roesing’s drum.
Appellant argues that in Krishnakumar,
there is no teaching of a stiffening bead 15 integrally formed in
the vicinity of the bunghole connection sleeve 9 on an inner
side 14 of the carrying and transport ring 6 so as to oppose the
stiffening hump 17 of the upper head 4, as in the present
invention.
Id.
To begin, this argument is not responsive because the Examiner did
not find that Krishnakumar discloses a stiffening bead on the inner side of a
carrying and transport ring as claimed. See Ans. 3. Rather, the Examiner
found that Krishnakumar discloses a stiffening bead (rib 24) that provides
rigidity and resistance to load. Ans. 5. Further, such argument is an

2 Appellant presents a single argument for claims 1 and 2 and we select
claim 1 as representative. Br. 6-11.
Appeal 2010-006000
Application 11/316,225

4
unpersuasive individual attack on Krishnakumar because the rejection relies
upon a combination of the references for this limitation. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
Appellant also argues that Krishnakumar’s ribs 24 cannot perform the
function of the claimed stiffening bead to remain undeformed to a
predetermined magnitude of force so as to prevent damage to the bunghole
connection sleeve 9. Br. 9-10. Claim 1 contains no such limitation. See In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail
from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in
the claims.”). Rather, claim 1 calls for the stiffening bead to be integrally
formed on the inner side of the carrying and transport ring in the vicinity of
the bunghole connection so as to oppose the stiffening hump. Appellant has
conceded Kirshnakumar’s ribs 24 serve to reinforce (Br. 9), and has failed to
cogently explain how reinforcing as disclosed by Kirshnakumar is not
stiffening as claimed.
As such, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roesing and Krishnakumar.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2010-006000
Application 11/316,225

5
AFFIRMED

mls