Ex Parte Boerrigter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

11134507 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 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.
11/134,507 05/23/2005 Johannes Boerrigter 5100-000017/US 9686
30593 7590 04/21/2017
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
TOLIN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
j Castellano @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES BOERRIGTER
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17-21, 23, and 24.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed August 27,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 24, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed October 23, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed December 15, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Klieverik Heli
B.V. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
The claims are directed to a method for manufacturing a carpet.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method for manufacturing carpet, comprising:
providing a fabric backing;
providing piles that include thermoplastic fibres;
placing the piles into the fabric backing such that a portion of
the fibres extend through the fabric backing;
applying adhesive powder to an underside of the fabric
backing by sprinkling the adhesive powder thereon;
carrying the fabric backing with inserted piles and the
adhesive powder along a heated surface to heat the portion of the
thermoplastic fibres of the piles that extend through the fabric
backing toward the heated surface to a temperature lower than a
melting point of the piles;
pressing the fabric backing with inserted piles after the fabric
backing has been carried along the heated surface by displacing
a guide roller from a non-pressing position to a pressing position
thereby pressing the backing and the piles arranged therein
together, so that the heated portion of the piles fuse together
during the pressing; and
adjusting a contact length between the fabric backing and the
heated surface based on a speed at which the fabric backing is
moving by adjustably displacing the guide roller out of contact
with the heated surface.
App. Br. 31 (Appendix A - Claims Appendix).
DISCUSSION
Appellant requests review of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17-21, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Fink et
al. (US 2002/0039636 Al, published April 4, 2002) (hereinafter “Fink”) in
view of Jones et al. (WO 02/02310 Al, published January 10, 2002)
2
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
(hereinafter “Jones”), and claims 6 and 12 as unpatenable over Fink in view
of Jones, and further in view of Woosley (US 5,536,551, issued July 16,
1996) or Scott (US 4,668,552, issued May 26, 1987) (hereinafter “Scott”).
Final Act. 5-13.
Appellant presents the similar arguments for each of independent
claims 1, 18, and 20, and dependent claim 24 (App. Br. 21-29) of which
claim 1 is representative.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the
reasons expressed in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
Fink teaches, inter alia, a method of manufacturing carpet comprising
providing fabric backing 800, providing piles that include thermoplastic
fibers 810, placing piles 810 into fabric backing 800 such that a portion of
fibers 814 (back loops) extend through fabric backing 800, applying
adhesive 806 to an underside of fabric backing 800, and carrying fabric
backing 800 with inserted piles and adhesive along a heated surface (e.g.,
heated roller) to heat the portion of the thermoplastic fibers of the piles that
extend through the fabric backing toward the heated surface. Fink 136-
138; Fig. 8; see also Fink Abstract, ]f]f 93-94; Fig. 4a. Fink teaches an
adhesive in the form of an extrusion coating or a preformed film. Fink ]} 94.
3
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
In addition, Fink teaches that as a result of heating, the back loops may be
partially melted, causing the fibers of the back loops to integrally fuse.
Id. If 93.
Fink does not teach the use of an adhesive powder as the adhesive,
however, the use of adhesive powder for application to a tufted backing to
provide increased tuft retention is generally known in the art, as evidenced
by Jones. Jones 4,11. 18-32, 7,11. 21-23, 8,11. 1-7.
Appellant argues that “[b]ecause Fink describes that substantially all
of the individual fibers of the yarn in the back loops (i.e., the portion that
extend through the fabric backing) melt, Fink does not disclose or suggest
heating the portion of the fibres that extend through the fabric backing to a
temperature lower than a melting point of the piles.” App. Br. 23 (emphasis
omitted); see also id. at 24, 27.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Fink teaches that the back loops may be heated above
the melting point of the yarn, melting at least a portion of the back loops,
causing the back loops to integrally fuse. Fink 86 (emphasis added); see
also Fink 91 (teaching that during manufacture, the back loops 308 are
preferably partially melted so that individual fibers making up the yarn are
integrally fused with each other by preheating of the carpet precursor before
contacting it with the hot greige goods coating) (emphasis added). It is clear
based on this disclosure that the back loops in Fink may not be heated above
the melting point of the yarn.
Appellant admits that Jones discloses the use of adhesive powder and
supplying an adhesive powder by sprinkling. Reply Br. 15. Appellant
argues, however, that “there is no rational basis to modify the method of
4
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
Fink according to the teachings of Jones” because the “adhesive powder [as
taught by Jones] would [not] be required or provide any added benefit to the
system and method of Fink in which the piles are heated to a temperature
above the melting point to integrally bond with one another.” Id. at 15-16;
see also App. Br. 25, 27-28.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute,
that Jones teaches that application of adhesive in powder form is a suitable
alternative to providing a liquid adhesive from a slot-die. Ans. 14 (citing
Jones 8,11. 17-19. Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a
desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not
needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301
(CCPA 1982); see also In reMayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“Because the applicants merely substituted one element known in the art for
a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”).
Thus, although Fink does not require the use of an adhesive powder, one of
ordinary skill in the art could have used Jones’ adhesive powder instead of
Fink’s extruded or film adhesive to provide adherence to, or integral
bonding between, the primary backing and the fiber bundle back loops. On
this record, Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the
art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have substituted
Jones’ powder adhesive for Fink’s liquid adhesive to provide increased tuft
retention.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “prima facie obviousness has
not been established” because “the additional claim feature of ‘pressing the
fabric backing with inserted piles after the fabric backing has been carried
5
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
along the heated surface by displacing a guide roller from a non-pressing
position to a pressing position thereby pressing the backing and the piles
arranged therein together’ appears to be ignored” by the Examiner. Reply
Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that ‘Tink fails to disclose or
suggest such feature.” Id.
Merely reciting the claim language, and asserting that the Examiner’s
findings do not describe such limitations is not a persuasive argument. See
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”). Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner has
not ignored the pressing step in claim 1. The Examiner finds that Fink
teaches that nip rolls 444 hold the carpet material against the heated surface
to provide sufficient heating and pressure to allow heated portions of the
carpet pile material to fuse together due to the pressing. Final Act 5 (citing
Fink paragraphs 93, 93; Figures 4a, 4b). The Examiner finds that the
downstream nip roller of Fink applies the claimed pressing after the fabric
backing has been carried along the heated surface. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner further finds that Fink teaches pressing by displacing a roller from
a non-pressing position to a pressing position. See id. (citing Fink 98).
Appellant does not dispute or identify error in the Examiner’s findings.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
9, 11, 12, 15, 17-21, 23, and 24 are affirmed.
6
Appeal 2016-002214
Application 11/134,507
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7