Ex Parte Velasquez Urey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13662800 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/662,800 10/29/2012
32692 7590 04/04/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ruben E. Velasquez Urey
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.
62386US018 5483
EXAMINER
BLADES, JOHN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUBEN E. VELASQUEZ UREY, ROCKY D. EDWARDS, and
DOUGLAS B. GUNDEL 1
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
Technology Center 1700
Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 6 in the above-identified application. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are 3M Company and
3M Innovative Properties Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to "carrier tapes for storing electronic
surface mount components," which "incorporate cover tapes having tear-
initiation features." Spec. 1:12-14. Figures 2A and 2B illustrate an
embodiment of the claimed subject matter:
:32a 34 32b
30
14__...
Fig .. 2A
32a 34 3.2b
l ' il48d 48dli
48c 48c
?"
14
36
48a
Fig .. 2B
Figure 2A and 2B depict top perspective views and top views of a cover tape
for a carrier tape. Spec. 2:20-21, 5:22-23. The cover tape contains tear-
2
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
initiation features 36 and score lines 46a and 46b. See id. at 7:7-21. Figure
2B also depicts arrows indicating directions of peeling or tearing 48a---d. See
id. at 8: 1-13. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative:
1. A method of using a carrier tape, the method
compnsmg:
providing the carrier tape having a cover tape bonded
to a base portion, wherein the cover tape includes a tear-
initiation feature and a score line, the tear-initiation
feature not intersecting the score line;
peeling a first portion of the cover tape from the base
portion until the peel reaches the tear-initiation feature
[48a];
peeling a second portion of the cover tape along the
tear-initiation feature [ 48b ];
tearing a third portion of the cover tape in a direction
that substantially follows the tear-initiation feature until
the tear reaches the score line [ 48c ]; and
tearing a fourth portion of the cover tape in a direction
that substantially follows the score line [ 48d].
Appeal Br., Claims App. 8 (emphasis added, and corresponding stages of
peeling and tearing are indicated with reference to Figure 2B).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by US Patent No. 5,390,472 [hereinafter Weiler] (issued Feb. 21, 1995).
Final Action 2-3.
II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Weiler in view of US Patent No. 3,467,250 (issued Sept. 16, 1968). Final
Action 3.
III. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Weiler in view of US Patent No. 4,944,979 (issued July 31, 1990). Final
Action 3--4.
3
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1, 3, and 5 as a group, see
Appeal Br. 3---6, and present no distinct arguments for claims 2 and 6 beyond
the arguments presented for claim 1, from which they depend, see id. at 6.
Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). All claims stand or fall together.
DISCUSSION
Figure 7 of Weiler is reproduced below:
102
/
iOO 104
U4
Figure 7 depicts a carrier tape with a cover tape. Weiler describes the figure
as follows:
[W]hen the cover strip is initially peeled from the carrier
tape, bonding portions 122 and 124 are pulled away with
medial portion 126. As the cover strip continues to be
pulled the tear force or tension in the cover strip is
redirected at slits 145 to the longitudinal tear lines
separating bonding portions 122 and 124 from medial
portion 126, so that the bonding portions are no longer
4
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
separated from the carrier tape. In order to assure a
redirection of the tear forces, the length of each slit
should extend from the peripheral edge of the bonding
portions to the longitudinal tear lines which separate the
bonding portions from the medial portion. However, to
prevent accidental tearing of medial portion 126 or tear
strip 128, the slits should not extend into the medial
portion.
Weiler 7: 18-32.
The Examiner finds that Weiler teaches each of the limitations of
claim 1, including "that the tear-initiation features will extend to--but not
intersect with-the score line." Final Action 2-3. This finding is informed
by the Examiner's construction of the phrase "intersecting the score line" as
meaning "providing a tear initiation feature that cuts across the score line"
(lines 46a and 46b in Figure 2B, above). Answer 4.
The Examiner also finds that Weiler discloses a specific embodiment
in which the tear-initiation feature does not intersect the score line. Answer
6-7. Weiler describes this embodiment as follows:
In one embodiment, where the width of the cover strip is
5.4 mm (0.213 inches) and the width of each bonding
portion is 0.665 mm (0.02618 inches), the length of each
slit is 0.66 mm 35 (0.02598 inches) at an angle of 45
degrees. Of course, as the width of the cover increases
the width of the bonding portions and slits 145 also
mcreases.
Weiler 7:32-38. The Examiner determines that "any reasonable reading of
this example demonstrates that the tear initiation feature does not extend
across the full width of the peripheral bonding portion and thus, does not
intersect the score line at the boundary of said portion." Answer 6.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's construction of the term
intersecting, arguing that "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
5
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
the phrase 'tear initiation feature not intersecting the score line' to mean that
tear-initiation feature does not reach or meet the score line." Appeal Br. 4.
As evidence for this construction, Appellants cite portions of the
Specification that refer to "reaching or meeting" the score lines. See id.
Appellants also cite dictionary definitions and examples of common usage
that imply that the term intersect does not require "cutting across." Reply
Br. 1-2.
Regarding the specific embodiment in Weiler cited by the Examiner,
Appellants argue that "[ s ]ince the slit is at [an] angle (in the example, at 45
degrees), Appellants respectfully submit that comparing the length of the slit
with the width of the bonding portion to imply that the slit does not intersect
the longitudinal tear line is unreasonable and misleading." Appeal Br. 5---6.
Based on either the Examiner's or Appellants' construction of the
phrase "intersecting the score line," we find no reversible error in the
Examiner's interpretation of Weiler' s specific embodiment. Weiler teaches
that the bonding portions 122 and 124 are 0.665 mm wide. Weiler 7:34--35.
It also teaches that each tear initiation slit 145 "is 0.66 mm ... at an angle of
45 degrees." Id. at 7:35-36. Under any reasonable interpretation of
Weiler' s description, the slits 145 do not pass through the entire bonding
portions 122 and 124 to reach the score line, because 0.66 mm is less than
0.665 mm. Weiler states that the slit is at a 45 degree angle, see id. at 36;
however, even if it were at a 90 degree angle, the slit would still not meet,
nor cross, the score line.
For the above reasons, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants do not separately challenge the
Examiner's specific findings regarding the other claims, we also find no
reversible error in the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6.
6
Appeal2014-003462
Application 13/662,800
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
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
7