Ex Parte Andersen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

12602212 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/602,212 06/28/2010 Carsten Andersen HBE0013US 3437
23413 7590 03/13/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street WORRELL, KEVIN
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARSTEN ANDERSEN1
Appeal 2016-004216
Application 12/602,212
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 9 as
unpatentable over Gross et al. WO (2006/107847 A2, published Oct. 12,
2006) in view of Ozaki et al. (JP 58091763 A, published May 31, 1983, as
translated) and Thompson et al. (US 5,298,694, issued Mar. 29, 1994) and of
dependent claims 3—8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over these references
alone or in combination with additional prior art. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Form-Fiber Denmark Aps is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004216
Application 12/602,212
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims an air-laid non-woven fiber product and a method
for making such a product wherein the product comprises a first portion of
recycled shredded material including shredded fabric material fibers from
automotive tires and a second portion of bi-component fibers, the majority
of which are crimped fibers (claims 1 and 9).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An air-laid non-woven fiber product manufactured by a
dry forming process, said product comprising:
a first portion of up to 98 % recycled shredded material,
where the shredded material is a mixture of shredded fabric
material fibers from automotive tires and residues of rubber and
other components from the shredded tires; and
a second portion of 1-5% bi-component fibers and having
a length between 2-6 mm, and comprising a core and an outer
sheathing, said outer sheathing having a first melting
temperature which is lower than the second melting temperature
of the core and that at least a major portion of the bi-component
fibers are crimped fibers.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds that the
recycled material of Gross WO does not include material from tires as
claimed and that the bi-component fibers of Gross WO are not taught to be
crimped as claimed (Final Action 2—3). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify the recycled material of Gross WO to
include material from tires “in order to effectively utilize waste of synthetic
fiber cord-reinforced tires to provide molded products that have high impact
strength [as taught by Ozaki]” (id. at 3) and that it would have been obvious
to use crimped bi-component fibers in the product of Gross WO “in order to
2
Appeal 2016-004216
Application 12/602,212
obtain air-laid webs having sufficient integrity to withstand further
processing operations [as taught by Thompson]” {id. at 3—4).
Appellant argues that Gross WO, Ozaki, and Thompson contain no
teaching, suggestion, or motivation for their combination as proposed by the
Examiner (Br. 6—7).
Appellant does not embellish this argument with any explanation why
the Examiner’s above quoted rationale expressed in the rejection fails to
support the proposed combination of references. Moreover, the Examiner
responds to Appellant’s argument by reiterating and expanding upon the
rejection-rationale thereby establishing that the combination would have
been made in order to provide the Gross WO product (e.g., a sound-proofing
material) with the beneficial properties taught by Ozaki and Thompson (Ans.
7—9). We observe that Appellant does not identify any error in the
Examiner’s response to argument (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). For
these reasons, the argument under consideration lacks persuasive merit.
Appellant also argues that “Applicants have [sic] surprisingly found
that use of short, crimped bi-component fibers provide advantageous results”
(Br. 7 (citing Spec. 3 generally)) and that “these advantages cannot
reasonably be expected from the teachings of the cited references” {id.).
As correctly explained by the Examiner, “Appellant has not pointed to
any specific evidence or results and has not compared any evidence to the
prior art of record” (Ans. 9). In the record before us, therefore, the above
quoted argument regarding surprisingly advantageous results is merely
attorney-argument unsupported by evidence.
3
Appeal 2016-004216
Application 12/602,212
Because Appellant fails to reveal harmful error therein, the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3—11 are sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
4