Ex Parte Fitzell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2007

10266215 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES RICHARD FITZELL, JR.
____________

Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: July 30, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-29. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An apparatus for producing a sheet of thermoplastic with variable
thickness from a molten thermoplastic, comprising:

a plurality of rollers, wherein the molten thermoplastic material will
pass between a pair of said rollers to be formed into the sheet; and
Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215

a strip material attached to at least one of said rollers, said strip
material engaging the molten thermoplastic at a predetermined location to
create a variation in the thickness of the sheet.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Friesner US 3,478,138 Nov. 11, 1969
McAmish US 6,818,083 B2 Nov. 16, 2004

Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an apparatus and method
for producing a sheet of thermoplastic with variable thickness from molten
thermoplastic material. The invention entails a plurality of rollers through
which the molten thermoplastic material passes, with a strip material
attached to at least one of the rollers. The strip of material on the roller
forms an area of reduced thickness in the thermoplastic material. According
to Appellant, the use of such strip material on the roller obviates the cost of
casting new rollers with varying radii for forming different thermoplastic
sheets having a different pattern of reduced thickness.
Appealed claims 1-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Friesner in view of McAmish.
Appellant has not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all of the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
2
Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215

Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Friesner, like Appellant, discloses an apparatus and method for producing a
sheet of thermoplastic material having variable thickness by extruding
molten thermoplastic between two rollers, one of which has a surface
contour that produces areas of different thickness on the thermoplastic sheet.
The rollers of Friesner have been cut or engraved for effecting the variation
in thickness of the thermoplastic sheet.
As acknowledged by the Examiner, the rollers of Friesner do not
include a strip material thereon for creating a variation in thickness, as
presently claimed. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that
McAmish evidences the obviousness of employing the presently claimed
strip material on the rollers as an alternative to the engraved rollers of
Friesner for forming a thermoplastic sheet having areas of reduced thickness.
Indeed, McAmish expressly discloses that, in impressing selected areas of a
thermoplastic sheet for bonding to a fabric, the rollers may include raised
areas provided by wrapping tape, such as Teflon, around the circumference
of the roller, or by engraving raised areas on the roller (see col. 5, ll. 31, et
seq.). We note that Figure 4 of McAmish depicts lanes or narrow portions
of the thermoplastic that are of reduced thickness in high-bond regions.
Hence, based on the combined teachings of Friesner and McAmish, we have
no doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
utilize Appellant's strip material on the rollers of Friesner as a variable
alternative to engraving the rollers.
3
Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215

Also, we fail to perceive any structural distinction between an
apparatus within the scope of the appealed claims and the apparatus fairly
described by McAmish within the meaning of § 102. It is well settled that
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
We find no merit in Appellant's argument that Friesner teaches away
from utilizing a strip material on the rollers by disclosing a preference for
chrome plating to prevent sticking of the thermoplastic material (Br. 8, first
para.). We are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using chrome
plating in accordance with Friesner or a Teflon strip material disclosed by
McAmish.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "McAmish
teaches the addition of a strip material to rollers, but only in connection with
lamination (e.g., the compressive joining of two different layers) – and then
only with the lamination of a fabric and a film" (Br. 8, second para.). We
find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that
McAmish's alternative means for impressing a pattern on a thermoplastic
sheet during bonding to another layer would also reasonably translate to
impressing a pattern on only a thermoplastic sheet. Appellant has apprised
us of no convincing rationale to the contrary.
We also do not subscribe to Appellant's position that "McAmish
suggests nothing about an extrusion process - let alone a process for
displacing material to reduce the thickness of a thermoplastic sheet" (id.).
As acknowledged by Appellant "[t]he film layer [of McAmish] is made from
extruded thermoplastic" that is "formed in extruder 22 into a sheet …" (Br.
4
Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215

7, first para.). As discussed above, the high bond areas of McAmish form
areas of reduced thickness in the thermoplastic sheet.
Finally, Appellant contends that "the lamination process and apparatus
disclosed by McAmish is from nonanalogous art, such that a person of skill
in the claimed art would not look to that art to solve a problem treated by the
claimed invention" (Br. 9, last para.). We disagree. In our view, McAmish
is directed to the same field of endeavor of imparting a pattern of reduced
thickness on a thermoplastic sheet and is reasonably pertinent to the same
problem of providing alternative means of utilizing rollers to provide
portions of a thermoplastic sheet with a reduced thickness. In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

James R. Fitzell, Jr.
900 Fifth Third Center
111 Lyon Street, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487

5