Ex Parte Seifert et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201613312469 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/312,469 12/06/2011 73896 7590 05/04/2016 Adams and Reese LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4400 Houston, TX 77010 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wolfgang Seifert 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. 15917-78 1079 EXAMINER CALANDRA,ANTHONYJ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1741 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2016 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 WOLFGANG SEIFERT and ERHARD PRANTZ1 Appeal2014-007277 Application 13/312,469 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Kronospan Technical Co. Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2014-007277 Application 13/312,469 Appellants claim a method for producing a wood material article comprising treating wood chips or fibers, prior to a gluing process, in saturated water vapor atmosphere or in saturated water vapor air for a duration of 3 to 8 minutes with bisulfite salt at a pressure of 6 to 12 bar (independent claim 1 ). Appellants also claim a wood material article made by the aforementioned treating step (remaining independent claim 8). A copy of representative claims 1 and 8, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A method for the production of a wood material article comprising: providing wood chips or wood fibres, treating said wood chips or wood fibres prior to a gluing process in saturated water vapour atmosphere or in saturated water vapour air for a duration of 3 to 8 minutes with bisulfite salt at a pressure of 6 to 12 bar, and gluing said wood chips or wood fibres together in a standard gluing process. 8. A wood material article, comprising wood chips or wood fibres glued together with an aminoplast resin, wherein the wood chips or fibres are, prior to the gluing process, treated with bisulfite salt in saturated water vapour atmosphere or in saturated water vapour air for a duration of 3 to 8 minutes at a pressure of 6 to 12 bar. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Mikaelsson et al. (EP 0 64 7 17 4 B 1, published Oct. 2, 1996) ("Mikaelsson"). The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mikaelsson in view of Krug et al. (DE 101 60 316 Al, published June 26, 2003, as translated) ("Krug") as evidenced by other publications including Saturated Steam Table by Efunda (Saturated Steam Table (Feb. 22, 2012) http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat.cfm). 2 Appeal2014-007277 Application 13/312,469 Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection (Br. 3-5). Therefore, dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-7 will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1. We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. In contesting the rejection of article claim 8 based on Mikaelsson alone, Appellants argue that Mikaelsson' s disclosure of impregnating/treating wood chips with bisulfite salt does not include any teaching or suggestion of treating in saturated water vapor atmosphere or saturated water vapor air for a duration of 3 to 8 minutes at a pressure of 6 to 12 bar as recited in the claim (Br. 3--4). As correctly explained by the Examiner, the patentability of claim 8 is based on the claimed product rather than its method of production, and Appellants do not even assert much less show that the product of article claim 8 is in any way distinguishable from the product of Mikaelsson (see, e.g., Ans. 2--4 (citing, e.g., In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the rejection by merely arguing that Mikaelsson does not disclose the treating conditions recited in claim 8. We emphasize that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's explanation in the record of this appeal (i.e., no reply brief has been filed). As for the rejection based on Mikaelsson and Krug, Appellants contend that Krug "teaches away from the subject-matter of [the] present invention" (Br. 4) and "teaches the person skilled in the art away from using the process steps of the prior art" (id. at 5). 3 Appeal2014-007277 Application 13/312,469 "Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention." Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellants' contention lacks persuasive merit for the reasons detailed by the Examiner (Ans. 4--7). In particular, Appellants do not identify with reasonable specificity any disclosures in Krug that suggest developments flowing therefrom are unlikely to produce the objective of Appellants' invention. Moreover, as emphasized by the Examiner (id. at 4, 5), Appellants' contention is directed to Krug alone and does not discuss the combination of Mikaelsson and Krug proposed in the rejection.2 Under these circumstances, Appellants do not show this rejection to be erroneous. The decision of the Examiner 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 2 Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that Appellants' invention-objective of formaldehyde reduction with bisulfite is expressly taught by Mikaelsson (Ans. 3). 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation