Ex Parte Selle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13909036 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/909,036 06/03/2013
22222 7590 08/23/2018
GEORGE R CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI 53589
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul A. Selle
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.
CMD235D 1076
EXAMINER
HIBBERT, MARY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL A. SELLE
Appeal2018-000291
Application 13/909,036
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, and 10-18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest in this appeal as CMD
Corporation. See App. Br. 3.
2 Although the Examiner listed claims "1-18" as being rejected (Final Act.
1 ), claims 2 and 9 had already been cancelled at the time.
Appeal2018-000291
Application 13/909,036
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to machines and methods for converting film
into articles. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A converting machine, comprising:
an input section;
a rotary drum, disposed to receive a web from the input
section, wherein the rotary drum includes at least one seal die
disposed thereon;
an output section, disposed to receive the web from the
rotary drum; and
wherein the at least one seal die includes a weakening
zone that forms a perforation with an auxiliary sealed area about
the perforation, wherein the weakening zone extends in the
machine direction at least as far as it extends in the cross
machine direction.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gietman, Jr.
Bohn
us 4,642,084
US 6,635,139 B2
REJECTIONS
Feb. 10, 1987
Oct. 21, 2003
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bohn.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bohn in view of Gietman, Jr.
2
Appeal2018-000291
Application 13/909,036
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bohn. Final Act. 2. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Bohn discloses:
[A] converting machine (100) and method, comprising: an input
section (Fig.1; fed between rollers 112,114); a rotary drum
(130), disposed to receive a web from the input section (Col.3),
wherein the rotary drum includes at least one seal die disposed
thereon (132,134,136,138); an output section (116,118),
disposed to receive the web from the rotary drum; and wherein
the at least one seal die includes a weakening zone (107,204) that
forms a perforation with an auxiliary sealed area about the
peiforation (Col.3 lines 19-65). Wherein the weakening zone
(107,204) extends in the machine direction at least as far as it
extends in the cross machine direction (Fig.2 Col.3 lines 54-60;
space between the [two] weakening zones could be interpreted
as extending in the machine direction).
Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner further states that Fig. 2 of Bohn
includes an "area extending at least the length of the cross section between
[two] weakened perforation lines shown as 107 ... [which] can broadly be
interpreted as a weakening zone." Ans. 7-8 (emphasis omitted).
As to claim 1, Appellant argues Bohn does not anticipate the claim
because the recited "weakening zone" is part of the seal die, whereas the
area in Bohn that the Examiner identifies as a "weakening zone" is actually
a feature of the film. App. Br. 11. Appellant also cites the Specification,
which expressly defines "weakening zone" as: "the portion of a seal bar that
creates ... an area on the web which is weakened, such as by perforation, or
a portion of the web being melted or burned off." Id. (citing Specification
,r 4 7) ( emphasis added). The Examiner states that "even though there is a
definition of 'weakening zone' in the specification, Applicant misinterprets
3
Appeal2018-000291
Application 13/909,036
the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification."
Ans. 7. We agree with Appellant, at least insofar as Bohn does not
anticipate claim 1.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable
meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented
in the specification." In re Am. Acad. of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 quoting In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
( emphasis added). The express definition in the Specification aside, claim 1
requires that the weakening zone is part of the seal die. See App. Br. 19, 1. 7
("wherein the at least one seal die includes a weakening zone .... "). The
area identified in Bohn as the "weakening zone" is not a part of the seal die;
it is part of the film. Therefore, because Bohn does not anticipate claim 1 as
asserted by the Examiner, we reverse the Examiner's rejection as to claim 1.
As to claim 8, Appellant argues Bohn does not anticipate the claim
because the area identified by the Examiner3 does not include "perforations
extending in the machine direction at least as far as in the cross machine
direction." App. Br. 17. We agree.
3 Although the Examiner rejects, as a group, claims 1, 8, and 14 over Bohn,
the Examiner's analysis only seems to address the limitations of claim 1
as to the "weakening zone." Final Act. 2. Consequently, both we and
Appellant are left to assume that the Examiner similarly relies on Bohn for
meeting the limitations of claims 8 and 14 as to "perforations and auxiliary
sealed areas extend[ ing] in the machine direction at least as far as they
extend[] in the cross machine direction .... " App Br. 20-21.
4
Appeal2018-000291
Application 13/909,036
The area in Bohn identified by the Examiner comprises "[the] space
between two weakened areas of film," i.e., the area between two adjacent
perforations 107. Ans. 7-8. Even assuming that the Examiner's reliance on
Bohn was such that the perforations 107 were included within the area, the
perforations 107 cannot be said to "extend in the machine direction" at all,
let alone "extend in the machine direction at least as far as they extend[] in
the cross machine direction[.]" App. Br. 20-21. Rather, the perforations
extend exclusively in the cross machine direction. Accordingly, because the
identified area of Bohn does not meet the specific requirements as to the
perforations of claim 8, we reverse the Examiner's rejections as to those
claims.
As to claim 14, we note that, similarly to claim 1, the Examiner's
rejection relies on features of the film in Bohn to meet the requirement of a
"means for forming, on the film, a plurality of perforations .... " Final Act.
2; App. Br. 21 ( emphasis added). As noted by Appellant, the means for
forming in claims 14--18 include "dies 1901 [,] wire or resistance heater 2911
and heater 2901," and the equivalents thereof. App. Br. 8. (internal citations
omitted). Because none of the identified features of the film in Bohn fall
within the boundaries of Appellant's "means for forming," we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 14 for this additional reason.
The Examiner's analysis regarding dependent claims 3-7, 10-13, and
15-18 do not cure the deficiencies of the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-18 are
REVERSED.
5