Ex Parte Horne

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

12141182 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/141,182 06/18/2008 Louis Kevin Horne GARL 200203US02 4814
27885 7590 07/29/2013
FAY SHARPE LLP
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
EXAMINER
TOLIN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LOUIS KEVIN HORNE
____________

Appeal 2012-007705
Application 12/141,182
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, HUBERT C. LORIN, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 19-24 and 31-49.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 19 is illustrative:
19. A method for forming a reinforced fabric comprising:

a) providing a first fiber group having a top and bottom surface, said
first fiber group is formed of a plurality of fibers positioned substantially
parallel to one another, said fibers not bonded together;

b) providing a first mat having a top surface, a bottom surface and a
side edge, said first mat formed of a plurality of threads, a plurality of said
threads intersecting one another, said first mat having an outer surface that is
Appeal 2012-007705
Application 12/141,182

2
formed of a material having a melting point that is less than a melting point
of said fibers in said first fiber group;

c) laying said bottom surface of said first mat on said top surface of
said first fiber group, said bottom surface of said first mat is only in contact
with a portion of said fibers of said first fiber group; and

d) heating said first mat at a temperature and for a period of time to
cause at least a portion of said first mat to fuse with or melt on a plurality of
said fibers of said first fiber group to form a melt bond that thereby bonds
said first mat to a plurality of said fibers of said first fiber group and at least
partially maintains a plurality of said fibers in a fixed location relative to one
another, said temperature less than said melting temperature of said first
fibers group, a plurality of said fibers in said first fiber group not bonded by
said melt bond to said first mat, a plurality of said fibers of said first fiber
group not bonded together by said heating step.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Nakatani et al. (Nakatani) 5,281,477 Jan. 25, 1994
Secrist et al. (Secrist) US 2002/0192467 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for forming a
reinforced fabric comprising forming a melt bond between a first mat
comprising a plurality of intersecting threads and a first fiber group
comprising a plurality of fibers positioned substantially parallel to one
another. The first mat has an outer surface that is formed of a material
having melting point that is less than the melting point of the fibers in the
first fiber group. The first mat is laid on the first fiber group and heated to
cause at least a portion of the first mat to fuse with or melt on a plurality of
fibers of the first fiber group.
Appeal 2012-007705
Application 12/141,182

3
Appealed claims 19-24 and 31-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Secrist in view of Nakatani.
Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 19.
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 Section 103 in view of the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
set forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Secrist, like Appellant, discloses a method for
forming a reinforced fabric by providing a first group of parallel reinforcing
fibers, to which is bonded a mat comprising a plurality of intersecting
threads, by using a thermoplastic binding agent which bonds both the yarns
of the mat and bonds the mat to the first fiber group. Secrist teaches that the
thermoplastic binding agent is “capable of effective bonding of the yarns of
the scrim [mat] to one another and also capable of effecting bonding of the
scrim to the underlying fiber sheet, employing heat and pressure” ([para.
0014]). Also, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings
and calculations to support the conclusion that the first fiber group of Secrist
comprises “a plurality of inner fibers which are not exposed on the surface”
(Ans. 7).
The principal argument advanced by Appellant is that, although the
layers of Secrist are bonded together via a thermoplastic bonding agent,
Appeal 2012-007705
Application 12/141,182

4
“Secrist is absent any teachings regarding heat bonding” (App. Br. 9, last
sentence). Appellant maintains that Secrist does not disclose a first mat
having an outer surface that is formed of a material having a melting point
that is less than a melting point of the fibers in the first fiber group, and
heating the first mat at a temperature and for a period of time to cause at
least a portion of the first mat to fuse with or melt on a plurality of the fibers
of the first fiber group to form a melt bond.
Implicit in Appellant’s argument is that Secrist does not teach a mat
comprising a plurality of threads which form the outer surface and which
melt and bond to the first fiber group. In other words, Appellant argues that
the claimed method does not use a thermoplastic binding agent but melts the
threads of the mat. However, this argument is not germane to the claimed
subject matter. The appealed claims simply call for the first mat having an
outer surface that is formed of a material having a melting point that is less
than a melting point of the fibers in the first group. The thermoplastic
binding agent of Secrist meets this limitation inasmuch as it forms an outer
surface of the mat and has a melting point that is less than the melting point
of the fibers in the first group. Secrist meets the claim limitation of causing
a portion of the first mat, the binding agent, to fuse with or melt on a
plurality of fibers of the first fiber group. Secrist also discloses cooling
below the fusion temperature of the binding agent (para. [0019]). Contrary
to the thrust of Appellant’s argument, the claims on appeal simply do not
recite that the threads of the mat are formed of a material having a melting
point less than the melting point of the fibers in the first group.

Appeal 2012-007705
Application 12/141,182

5
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam