12240349 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

Ex Parte Bressler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 12, 2014

12240349 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

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. 12/240,349 09/29/2008 CHRISTIAN BRESSLER 115882-11 (100727-140) 5214 27388 7590 11/13/2014 Hildebrand, Christa Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA 875 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3788 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2014 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 CHRISTIAN BRESSLER and MARCUS HOFFMAN ________________ Appeal 2012-007165 Application 12/240,349 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants Christian Bressler and Marcus Hoffman appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A single-dose package for liquid, pasty or semi-solid materials, comprising: Appeal 2012-007165 Application 12/240,349 2 a fluid container including a lower and an upper partial container, wherein, after filling, the lower partial container is provided to be connected at a common seam to the upper partial container such that the upper partial container sits on top of the lower partial container at the seam, and the upper partial container carries a removal spout, and where a circumferential splash protection neck is provided on the removal spout. THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pranitis (US 5,860,806; iss. Jan. 19, 1999).1 ANALYSIS Claims 1–15 — Anticipated by Pranitis The Examiner finds that Pranitis discloses the claimed invention. In particular, the Examiner finds that Prainitis’ “lower partial container is connected at a common seam to the upper partial container” explaining that “element 35 in Fig. 2 [of Pranitis] is considered a seam since it is a line/groove formed by abutting edges of the upper and lower partial containers.” Ans. 4–5. The Examiner relies on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 10th edition (2001), for defining the term “seam” as “‘a line, groove, or ridge formed by the abutment of edges.’” Id. at 5. The Examiner determines that “line/ridge element 35 is considered a seam since it is the line or ridge formed by the abutment of the upper edge of the lower partial container 30 and the bottom edge of the upper partial container 31.” Id. at 8. 1 Appellants’ represent, and the Examiner does not dispute, that an amendment was entered to overcome the objections to claims 10, 12, and 14, and the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated April 28, 2011. Appeal Br. 4–5. Appeal 2012-007165 Application 12/240,349 3 To the contrary, Appellants argue that the “Pranitis web does not have a seam, which is ‘a line formed by abutting edges of the upper and lower partial containers.’” Br. 9. Rather, Appellants contend that Pranitis “teaches an ‘integrally formed and interconnected’ cup which includes a web 35, which is simply a weak area between the two reservoir sections [sic] 30 and the neck 31.” Id. Appellants point out that “’[i]ntegrally formed’ does not include the meaning that there are ‘abutting edges’ of physical parts” and thus conclude that the “Pranitis web is not a seam of two physically different parts.” Id. “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, we accept the Examiner’s definition of the term seam, as supported by citation to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, however, we agree with Appellants that the definition requires the abutment of edges of two separate parts, which is consistent with the Specification’s description of welding the lower and upper partial containers together at the seam. Spec. 2. Moreover, although we appreciate that web 35 of Pranitis constitutes a weak area, nonetheless, sections 30, 31 do not have edges because they are merely parts of an integral component, namely cup 20. We are thus persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Pranitis discloses a seam, as claimed, in view of Pranitis’ integrally formed lower and upper cup sections. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because claims 2–15 ultimately depend from claim 1, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–15. Appeal 2012-007165 Application 12/240,349 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pranitis is reversed. REVERSED mls