Ex Parte Fabian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2013

11558183 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GABOR FABIAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-001986
Application 11/558,183
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, REMY J. VANOPHEM, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001986
Application 11/558,183

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Gabor Fabian appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-24. Claim 6 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The claims are directed to a container having a wire payoff brush
structure. Claims 1, 17 and 24 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wire coil container, comprising:
a box structure,
a wire coil contained within said box structure, and
a payoff brush structure, said payoff brush structure
comprises:
a ring structure having an outer edge and an
inner edge; and
a plurality of bristles extending from said inner
edge toward a center region of said payoff brush
structure,
wherein said payoff brush structure is positioned such
that wire from said wire coil will contact at least some
of said bristles as said wire is removed from said box
structure,
wherein said wire coil has an inner diameter which is
larger than a diameter of an inner region of said payoff
brush structure created by said bristles.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jordan US 3,758,046 Sep. 11, 1973
Hosbein US 4,222,535 Sep. 16, 1980
Cooper US 5,277,314 Jan. 11, 1994
Schneider US 5,806,780 Sep. 15, 1998
Blain US 6,547,176 Bl Apr.15,2003
Barton US 2004/0173703 Al Sep. 9, 2004
Appeal 2011-001986
Application 11/558,183

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4-5, 10-12, 17, 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bain and Barton.
2. Claims 2, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blain and Barton and further in
view of Hosbein.
3. Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blain and Barton and further in view of Cooper.
4. Claim 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blain, Barton and Cooper and further in view of
Schneider.
5. Claims 14, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blain, Barton and Cooper and further in
view of Jordan.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 10-12, 17, 22 and 24 as obvious over Blain and
Barton.
The Examiner finds that Blain teaches the elements of independent
claims 1, 17 and 24, excepting the limitation “a plurality of bristles
extending from said inner edge toward a center region of said payoff brush
structure, wherein said payoff brush structure is positioned such that wire
from said wire coil will contact at least some of the bristles as said wire is
removed from said box structure.” Ans. 4. For that missing limitation, the
Examiner relied on Barton. Id.
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify Blain in view of Barton so that the brush
Appeal 2011-001986
Application 11/558,183

4
structure of Barton (232 and 234 of Barton) is added to the ring member (21
near the edge of 47) of Blain and the flaps of Blain are removed and
replaced with the bristle structure of Barton on top of element 21 of Blain.”
Ans. 4.
The Appellant contends that the symmetrical bristles shown in Barton
do not have an asymmetrical or variable geometry that engages the wire
during payoff of the coil in a manner as described in Blain. Therefore,
Appellant contends, substitution of the Barton bristles in place of the Blain
guide flaps would render the controller of Blain unsuitable for its intended
purpose as well as change its principle of operation. We disagree.
The Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning under the § 103 rejection. Further, buttressing the Examiner’s
rejection is the statement in para [0013] of the Barton reference which
discloses the following
“[0013] In accordance with another aspect of the invention
the payout has only an outer stationary ring with a floating
ring overlying the latter and surrounding the inner core of
the welding wire package. In this embodiment, the wire is
payed out between the inner edge of the outer ring and the
inner core of the welding wire package and the inner edge
of the floating ring controls the payout of the wire. In yet
another embodiment, the gap between radially inner and
outer rings is covered by the bristles of a brush ring secured
to one or the other of the inner and outer rings, whereby
payout of the wire is controlled by the resistance of the
bristles.”
Appeal 2011-001986
Application 11/558,183

5
Moreover, Barton appears to teach the interchangeability of a bristle
structure and a thin latex film structure. See Barton, para. [0042] (“While
brush fibers are preferred, it will be appreciated that a thin film of latex or
the like would provide the desired resiliency to control the payout and
tension the wire.”). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4-5,
10-12, 17, 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

Rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 23 over Blain,
Barton and Hosbein.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 15 and 16 depend from independent claim 1 and
claims 18, 19 and 23 depend from claim 17. Appellant has not presented
any further arguments with respect to these dependent claims. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claims 1 and 17.

Rejection of claims 7 and 9 over Blain, Barton and Cooper.
Claim 7 and 9 depend from claim 1 and Appellant has not presented
any further arguments with respect to these dependent claims. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.

Rejection of claim 8 over Blain, Barton, Cooper and Schneider.
Claim 8 depends indirectly from claim 1. Appellant has not presented
any further arguments with regard to claim 8. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons
discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2011-001986
Application 11/558,183

6
Rejection of claims 14, 20 and 21 over Blain in view of Barton Cooper and
Jordan.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and claims 20 and 21 depend from
claim 17. Appellant has not presented any further arguments with regard to
these dependent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 14, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons discussed with
respect to independent claims 1 and 17.

CONCLUSIONS

The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5 and 17-24 , are 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).

DECISION

AFFIRMED

Klh