Ex Parte Siemen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201813257829 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/257,829 12/02/2011 53609 7590 08/29/2018 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. 2215 PERRYGREEN WAY ROCKFORD, IL 61107 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andreas Siemen 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. 508765 1325 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): RockMail@reinhartlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREAS SIEMEN, GUNTER SCHUBERT, BORIS KASPAR, JOCHEN SCHWARTZ, and ANTONIO MATEO Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257,829 Technology Center 1700 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's July 13, 2016 decision finally rejecting claims 1-10 ("Final Act."). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellant, which is the assignee of the application, identifies the real party in interest as Hydro Aluminium Deutschland GmbH (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257 ,829 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosure is directed to a method for producing a coated aluminum strip (Abstract). The aluminum is unwound from a coil and fed into an extrusion coating arrangement so that the aluminum strip is extrusion coated with a thermoplastic polymer (id.). After cooling, the coated strip is reheated so that the metal is above the melting point of the thermoplastic polymer, which is then textured (id.). This order of steps is said to improve the adhesion of the thermoplastic polymer to the aluminum strip (Spec. ,r 5). Details of the claimed invention are set forth in claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. Method for producing a coated aluminium strip, compnsmg: unwinding an aluminium strip from a coil; feeding the aluminium strip into a unilateral or bilateral extrusion coating arrangement; coating the aluminium strip via extruding with a thermoplastic polymer coating thereon; reheating the aluminium strip with said thermoplastic polymer coating thereon such that the temperature of the aluminium strip is above the melting point of the thermoplastic polymer coating, and texturing said thermoplastic polymer coating residing on the aluminium strip using rolls which have a superficial structure. 2 Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257 ,829 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Levendusky2 in view of Berg. 3 II. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Levendusky in view of Berg, and further in view of Corus. 4 III. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Levendusky in view of Berg, and further in view of Krause. 5 DISCUSSION Appellants do not offer separate substantive arguments for any of the dependent claims. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1 over Levendusky in view of Berg. The remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Levendusky teaches a method for extrusion coating both sides of an aluminum strip substrate which is unwound from a coil with a thermoplastic polymer (Final Act. 2, citing Levendusky Abstract, ,r,r 2 and 51 ). The Examiner further finds that Levendusky teaches a casting roll with presses the polymer extrudate to the metal strip substrate and that the roll may be textured (Final Act. 2-3, citing Levendusky, ,r 44 and 49. The Examiner also finds that Levendusky teaches a reheating step in which a 2 Levendusky et al, US 2004/0007175 Al, published January 15, 2004. 3 Berg et al., US 2003/0118783, published June 26, 2003. 4 Corns, EP 1 362 653 Al, published November 19, 2003. 5 Krause et al, US 5,976,652, issued November 2, 1999. 3 Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257 ,829 metal strip with coating on one side is heated prior to coating and pressing on the uncoated side (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Levendusky does not disclose a heating step between application of the thermoplastic extrudate to the metal substrate and prior to texturing of the extrudate (id). The Examiner finds that Berg discloses a thermoplastic texturing and printing method in which and extruded thermoplastic is textured while in a melt state (id.). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate Berg's printing and texturing technique in Levendusky's method by ensuring a melt state of the thermoplastic polymer layer prior to texturing by heating the aluminum strip prior to texturing of the thermoplastic polymer (id.). Appellant argues that the cited art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the claimed step of "reheating the aluminium strip with said thermoplastic polymer coating thereon such that the temperature of the aluminium strip is above the melting point of the thermoplastic polymer coating" (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant contends that the cited art does not disclose the claimed sequence of coating, reheating, and texturing because neither reference discloses reheating the extruded polymer (id.). First, we address Appellant's position that the claim requires the specific sequence of (1) coating, (2) reheating, and (3) texturing (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner takes the position that the claims do not require such a sequence (Ans. 6). Based on the language of claim 1, we agree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires the foregoing sequence of events. It is well established that during prosecution, "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable 4 Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257 ,829 construction consistent with the specification." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this instance, the FIGS. 1 and 2 and the associated description (Spec. i-fi-f25-33) make clear that the coating step precedes the reheating step 6, which in tum precedes the texturing step. This is consistent with the language of claim 1, in which the coating, reheating and texturing steps are presented in this order. Thus, we construe claim 1 as requiring that the recited steps take place in the recited order. Although the Examiner stated that the claims do not require a specific order of operations, the Examiner finds that: Levendusky specifically teaches reheating a strip during processing an aluminum strip with thermoplastic extruded thereon in order to control heat loss from the strip (see Levendusky at ,r,r [0057]-[0058]), and Berg teaches that maintenance of a melt state of extruded thermoplastic is significant with regard to transfer of features by a textured molding device (see Berg at ,r,r [0010], [0030], [0042]). Additionally, Levendusky teaches boost heaters disposed throughout process locations in order to maintain optimum processing conditions (see ,r,r [0035], [0064], [0066], [0068], [0070], [0072]), and the reference expressly states that alternative processing techniques from those disclosed therein are otherwise apparent (see Levendusky at ,r [0079]). Ans. 5---6. As explained by Appellant (Reply Br. 8), while Levendusky does disclose reheating during processing of the aluminum strip, such reheating is done in the context of further extrusion and coating, not texturing 6 The use of the word "reheating" necessarily suggests that the object has cooled somewhat prior to the reheating step. 5 Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257 ,829 (Levendusky, ,r,r 30, 32, 35, and 37). Moreover, Berg's teaching regarding the maintenance of the melt state of the thermoplastic is in connection with the transfer of ink, not texture (see, Reply Br. 9). The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability."). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the evidence of record does not adequately establish that the cited art would have made obvious the claimed sequence of the steps of coating, reheating, and texturing. The art does not teach this sequence, and the Examiner has not provided a persuasive rationale of why a person of skill in the art would have chosen it. Therefore, Appellant has demonstrated reversible error in the rejection. The same reasons require reversal of Rejections II and III. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levenduskyin view of Berg. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levendusky in view of Berg, and further in view of Corns. 6 Appeal 2017-011077 Application 13/257 ,829 We REVERSE the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Levendusky in view of Berg, and further in view of Krause. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation