Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201813486802 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/486,802 06/01/2012 23562 7590 BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP PA TENT DEPARTMENT 1900 North Pearl Street Suite 1500 DALLAS, TX 75201 05/31/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zheng Chen 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. 24250309-002001 4658 EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): docket@bakermckenzie.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHENG CHEN and JAMES MICHAEL McHALE 1 Appeal2017-005871 Application 13/486,802 Technology Center 1600 Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHN G. NEW, and TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants state that the real party-in-interest is Ideal Standard International BVBA, a subsidiary ofLIXIL Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-005871 Application 13/486,802 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Machida et al. (US 2003/0134107 Al, July 17, 2003) ("Machida"). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 2 NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to a cost-effective and practical antimicrobial glaze system and glazing process. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 10 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites: 10. A method of producing a multilayer antimicrobial ceramic glaze/enamel product, comprising the steps of: applying a base glaze material onto a ceramic body to form a base glaze layer of thickness between about 300 µm and 1000 µm after firing; applying a top glaze material directly to the base glaze layer wherein the top glaze material contains more than about 8.0 percent by weight and less than about 35.0 percent by weight ZnO; and 2 On February 22, 2017, Appellants requested oral argument for this appeal, which, due to an oversight, was not timely scheduled. However, because we reverse the Examiner's rejection, we decide that a hearing is not necessary, and we herein so notify Appellants, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(f). 2 Appeal2017-005871 Application 13/486,802 firing the top glaze material in a kiln to create a top glaze layer of thickness between about 25 µm and 250 µm after firing; wherein relative thicknesses and concentrations of the top glaze layer and base glaze layer are such that a total concentration of the multilayer antimicrobial glaze/ enamel is less than about 5.0 percent by weight ZnO; wherein the multilayer antimicrobial ceramic glaze or porcelain enamel product is substantially free of surface defects. App. Br. 20. ISSUES AND ANALYSES A. Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 Issue 1 Appellants argue these independent claims together. App. Br. 7. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitations of the claims reciting: "wherein relative thicknesses and concentrations of the top glaze layer and base glaze layer are such that a total concentration of the multilayer antimicrobial glaze/enamel is less than about 5.0 percent by weight ZnO" and "wherein the multilayer antimicrobial ceramic glaze or porcelain enamel product is substantially free of surface defects." App. Br. 7, 9. Analysis Appellants argue that Machida, upon which the Examiner relies, is silent with respect to the relative thicknesses and concentrations of the top glaze layer and base glaze layer. App. Br. 7. Appellants point to their Specification, which, they argue, discloses that adjustments to the relative 3 Appeal2017-005871 Application 13/486,802 thicknesses and concentrations of ZnO in the top glaze layer and base glaze layer provide various advantages. Id. at 7-8 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 16, 17). The claims are directed to a method of making a multilayer ceramic/ glaze product that comprises a top glaze having "more than about 8.0 percent by weight and less than about 35.0 percent by weight ZnO", where "the top glaze layer and base glaze layer are such that a total concentration of the multilayer antimicrobial glaze/enamel is less than about 5.0 percent by weight ZnO." . Appellants argue that Machida neither teaches nor suggests the recited total concentration based on the relative thicknesses and concentrations of the top glaze layer and base glaze layer. Id. Appellants submit an illustration that summarizes the limitations of the claim in question, which is reproduced below: (~~·lCopy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation