Ex parte Valyi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2000

08362151 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2000)

The advisory action mailed on April 3, 1996 (paper no.1
7) states that the amendment after final rejection filed on
March 18, 1996 (paper no. 6) will be entered upon the filing
of an appeal. That amendment, however, has not been
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte EMERY I. VALYI
________________
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before GARRIS, OWENS and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s refusal to allow
claims 1-3, 5 and 7-11 as amended after final rejection. 1
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
clerically entered. Upon return of the application to the
examiner, the examiner should have this amendment entered. We
decide this appeal based on the claims as they appear in this
amendment, which is how the claims appear in the appendix to
appellant’s brief.
-2-
These are all of the claims remaining in the application.
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims an injection molding process for forming
a color coated article. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. In a process for forming a color coated article by
applying a color coated material to an injection mold having
mold halves, a mold parting face, a mold cavity edge, and a
mold cavity therein for the formation of an injection molded
article, and injecting molten plastic into said mold cavity to
form a laminated article with the color coated material bonded
to the injected plastic, the improvement which comprises:
providing a color coated blank having a roughened
surface, said blank adapted to be placed into at least one
mold half, wherein the color coated blank is cut from a web in
a size and shape adapted to fit between the mold halves, and
with a rim portion thereof adapted to mate with the mold
cavity edge at the parting face of the mold;
transferring said blank into registry with at least one
of said mold halves, including the step of retaining the rim
portion on the mold cavity edge; and
injecting molten plastic into the mold cavity against the
roughened surface of the blank to form a laminated, injection
molded article with the color coated blank bonded to the
injected plastic, wherein the roughened surface of the blank
increases the surface area of the blank, promotes greater
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
-3-
adherence between the blank and injected plastic and enhances
bonding of the blank to the injected plastic.
THE REFERENCES
Valyi 3,939,239 Feb. 17,
1976
Hanamoto et al. (Hanamoto) 4,639,341 Jan. 27,
1987
Yabe et al. (Yabe) 4,898,706 Feb. 6,
1990
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-11 stand rejected under Hanamoto in
view of Valyi and Yabe.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
Appellant's claims 1, which is the sole independent
claim, requires that the color coated blank has a roughened
surface which promotes greater adherence between the blank and
injected plastic and enhances bonding of the blank to the
injected plastic. Appellant argues that the applied
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
-4-
references do not suggest this limitation (brief, page 10).
The examiner argues that Yabe discloses a “roughened
patterned surface which would give the obvious improvement of
enhanced bonding benefits” (answer, page 6). Yabe teaches
that his polycarbonate sheet is conventional and not
particularly limited, and has thereon a pattern which is
formed by a method which is not particularly limited and which
may be conventional silk screen printing, hot stamping and the
like (col. 2, lines 54-55; col. 3, lines 6-8). The examiner
does not point out, and it is not apparent, where Yabe
indicates that this pattern is roughened or that it enhances
bonding.
The examiner argues that appellant’s roughened surface is
made obvious by Yabe’s “teaching of an engraved surface which
results in a three dimensional or uneven surface” (answer,
page 7). Yabe’s polycarbonate sheet is pushed toward the mold
surface by the injected resin, thereby causing the sheet to
follow the engraved unevenness of the mold (col. 2, lines 39-
44). Appellant’s claim 1, however, requires that the blank
itself, which is adapted to be placed into at least one mold
half, has a roughened surface. The examiner has not pointed
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
-5-
out, and we do not find, where Yabe discloses or would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a
roughened blank.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in any of
appellant’s claims. Consequently, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 7-11 under Hanamoto in
view of Valyi and Yabe is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
-6-
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tjo/ki
Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
-7-
Bachman & Lapointe
900 Chapel Street Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510-2802