Ex Parte Asmussen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201412065649 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BODO ASMUSSEN and MARKUS KRUMME ____________________ Appeal 2012-007132 Application 12/065,649 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 4, 10 and 11.1 App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a packaging unit comprising a container and film-like materials. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim involved in this appeal and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 An amendment cancelling claims 6–8 was filed under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(b)(1). App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-007132 Application 12/065,649 2 1. A packaging unit comprising a container and film-like materials that are hygroscopic or soften under the influence of moisture, characterized in that: the film-like materials (30) are arranged in the container (10) in the form of a stack, interposed between any two film-like materials (30), there is a separating material (40) that is physically stable and chemically inert to these film-like materials (30), each separating material (40) is in contact with the two film-like materials (30) and the separating material (40) does not adhere to at least one of these two film-like materials (30) or it adheres to it less strongly than it does to the other film-like material (30); characterized in that the individual separating material (40) is a PET film with an anti-adhesive coating (47) at least on one side; and the separating material (40) carries - on the side opposite to that with the anti-adhesive coating (47) - a coating (46) that is in adhesive contact with the film-like material (30). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Tindall Corriveau Ginsberg US 3,051,584 US 2004/0043134 A1 US 6,708,826 B1 Aug. 28, 1962 Mar. 4, 2004 Mar. 23, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Corriveau in view of Tindall and Ginsberg. Ans. 4. Appeal 2012-007132 Application 12/065,649 3 Claims 1-4, 10, and 11 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tindall in view of Corriveau and Ginsberg. Ans. 7. OPINION Claim 1 requires, inter alia: an anti-adhesive coating (47) at least on one side; and the separating material (40) carries - on the side opposite to that with the anti-adhesive coating (47) - a coating (46) that is in adhesive contact with the film-like material (30). In addressing this limitation, the Examiner stated: (the bottom side of the separating material 19 of Tindall has a coating thereon so that there will be no tendency for the film- like materials to adhere to the bottom side of the separating material - See column 2, lines 14-21) at least on one side; and the separating material carries, on the side opposite to that with the anti-adhesive coating, a coating (the strip material may be coated with wax - Tindall column 2, line 12) that is in contact with the film-like material Ans. 6. Both Tindall column 2, lines 14-21 and Tindall column 2, line 12 describe a wax coating and thus, the Examiner is apparently relying on Tindall’s wax coating as both the adhesive and anti-adhesive coating required by the claims. Both mentions of wax in the cited portions of Tindall characterize this coating as a “release” agent or film. The Examiner has not set forth any explanation as to why one skilled in the art would interpret Tindall’s wax as an “adhesive coating” seemingly contravening Tindall’s express teachings to the contrary. Moreover, it is not clear how the same wax coating of Tindall can constitute both adhesive and non-adhesive coatings. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those Appeal 2012-007132 Application 12/065,649 4 skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Appellants correctly conclude that the Examiner has not established that Tindall contains any “direction toward the use or need for a [] film with an anti-adhesive coating (47) [wherein] the opposite side has a coating (46) that is in adhesive contact with the film-like material (30).” App. Br. 5. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation