SCREEN MEND LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2021

2020006454 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/865,357 09/25/2015 Chris Quinn 74483.1.1 2319
22859 7590 09/28/2021
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
200 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 4000
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
GILLETT, JENNIFER ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2021 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):
IP@FREDLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS QUINN and REED QUINN
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357
Technology Center 1700
Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed September 25, 2015
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated July 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed March 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer dated April 9, 2020 (“Ans.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Screen Mend LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 12 and 15–20 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner
as directed to a non-elected species and invention. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a screen repair system. Spec. ¶ 8.
Independent claim 11, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
11. A screen repair system, the screen repair system
comprising:
a screen mesh, wherein the screen mesh includes
fiberglass strands;
a polyvinyl chloride dip coating on the screen mesh; and
a laminate, wherein the laminate:
includes ethylene vinyl acetate hot melt glue;
is configured to melt between 90° C and 100° C;
is located on the screen mesh; and
is configured to secure the screen mesh to an
existing screen.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal (Ans. 3):
Rejection I: Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
Rejection II: Claims 4, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Dann,4 Blanchard,5 and Ornsteen.6

4 Dann et al., US 5,128,186, issued July 7, 1992.
5 Blanchard et al., US 2014/0017471 A1, published Jan. 16, 2014.
6 Ornsteen et al., US 5,041,482, issued Aug. 20, 1991.
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

3
Rejection III: Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dann,
Blanchard, Ornsteen, and Gasaway.7
Rejection IV: Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Dann, Blanchard, Ornsteen, and Kimbrell.8
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the evidence in light of the Appellant’s and the
Examiner’s opposing positions, we determine that Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection I – Indefiniteness
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite because it
depends from claim 6, a cancelled claim. Final Act. 2.
Appellant indicates that, if prosecution is reopened, it will modify the
dependency of claim 7 to depend from claim 11 instead of claim 6. Appeal
Br. 9.
Because Appellant does not present any substantive arguments
regarding the indefiniteness rejection, we summarily affirm the rejection.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. rev.
08.2017 Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that

7 Gasaway, US 3,623,937, issued Nov. 30, 1971.
8 Kimbrell et al., US 2005/0233662 A1, published Oct. 20, 2005.
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

4
ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the
examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
Rejection II – Obviousness over Dann, Blanchard, and Ornsteen
Appellant’s arguments focus on independent claim 11. Appeal Br. 9–
10. Appellant does not present any separate substantive arguments as to
claims 4, 7, and 9. Id. We select independent claim 11 as representative and
claims 4, 7, and 9 will stand or fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2018).
The Examiner finds that Dann teaches a screen implement used in
repair of screens that includes a solid or perforated sheet or screen of
fiberglass coated on at least one side with an adhesive. Final Act. 3 (citing
Dann, code (57), 2:25–30). The Examiner finds that Dann teaches using a
hot melt adhesive as the adhesive coating, but does not teach the fiberglass
substrate has a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) dip coating or the specific type of
hot melt material used as the hot melt adhesive. Id. at 4 (citing Dann 3:11–
18).
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
used a polyvinyl chloride dip coating on Dann’s fiberglass screen based on
Blanchard’s teaching that a glass strand coated with a polymer-based layer,
such as polyvinyl chloride, provides screens with improved resistance to
soiling substances and increased strength. Id. at 4 (citing Blanchard,
code (57), ¶¶ 1, 10, 55–61).
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
used an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) hot melt glue, such as Ornsteen’s EVA
glue, as the adhesive in Dann’s screening implement because EVA is the
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

5
most widely used polymer in hot melt formulations and Ornsteen’s EVA
glue has lower melt temperatures that improve safety, reduce degradation of
the adhesive, and eliminate off-gassing while providing increased bond
strength. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Ornsteen, code (57), 3:64–4:9, 5:19–36).
Appellant argues that Dann does not teach a hot melt glue that is part
of a laminate. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition
for the term “laminate.” However, according to the plain language of
claim 11, the laminate includes a hot melt glue, is located on the screen
mesh, and is configured to secure the screen mesh to an existing screen,
which is consistent with the description in Appellant’s Specification. Appeal
Br. 13 (Claims App.); Spec. ¶ 21. Dann teaches a screen implement used in
repairing or mounting screens that includes an adhesive, such as a hot melt
adhesive, located on a screen mesh that secures the screen mesh to an
existing screen. Dann, code (57), 3:11–18. Dann also teaches applying an
adhesive to a roll of fiberglass mesh using laminating equipment. Dann
4:65–5:3. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding that Dann’s hot melt adhesive is part of a “laminate” as in claim 11.
Appellant argues that Blanchard teaches glass strands, not fiberglass
strands coated with PVC. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection because as the Examiner points out, glass fiber and
fiberglass are not known to be structurally distinct. Ans. 13. Appellant’s
argument is also unpersuasive because the Appellant is attacking the
references individually when the rejection is based upon a combination of
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

6
prior art disclosures. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as
here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Dann is relied
on for teaching a fiberglass screen and Blanchard is relied upon for teaching
the benefit of coating a screen formed of glass strands with a PVC coating.
Id.
Appellant argues that there would not have been any reason for one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dann, Blanchard,9 and
Ornsteen. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection because Appellant’s argument fails to address or
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have used a polyvinyl chloride dip coating on Dann’s
fiberglass screen based on Blanchard’s teaching that a glass strand coated
with a polymer-based layer, such as polyvinyl chloride, provides screens
with improved resistance to soiling substances and increased strength. Final
Act. 4 (citing Blanchard, code (57), ¶¶ 1, 10, 55–61). Likewise, Appellant’s
argument fails to address or identify the reversible error in the Examiner’s
finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used an ethylene
vinyl acetate (EVA) hot melt glue, such as Ornsteen’s EVA glue, as the
adhesive in Dann’s screening implement because EVA is the most widely
used polymer in hot melt formulations and Ornsteen’s EVA glue has lower
melt temperatures that improve safety, reduce degradation of the adhesive,

9 Although Appellant refers to Bertrand, because Bertrand is not relied on by
the Examiner the in the rejection, we presume Appellant’s argument meant
to refer to Blanchard rather than Bertrand.
Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

7
and eliminate off-gassing while providing increased bond strength. Final
Act. 4–5 (citing Ornsteen, code (57), 3:64–4:9).
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error, we
sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7, 9, and 11.
Rejections III & IV
Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments for claims
5, 13, and 14 aside from the arguments presented for claim 11 above. Thus,
we also sustain the rejection of those claims for the reasons set forth above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7 112(b) Indefiniteness 7
4, 7, 9, 11 103 Dann, Blanchard,
Ornsteen
4, 7, 9, 11
5 103 Dann Blanchard,
Ornsteen, Gasaway
5
13, 14 103 Dann, Blanchard,
Ornsteen, Kimbrell
13, 14
Overall
Outcome
4, 5, 7, 9,
11, 13, 14

Appeal 2020-006454
Application 14/865,357

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED