Ex Parte Cerf

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13972078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/972,078 08/21/2013 Alain Cerf
53404 7590 03/20/2018
SAM SILVERBERG
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Slots 9471
EXAMINER
8515 Baymeadows Way Unit 301 TAWFIK,SAMEH
Jacksonville, FL 32256
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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 ALAIN CERF
Appeal2017-005296
Application 13/972,078
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4 and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-005296
Application 13/972,078
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a process for cooling film wrapped articles.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A process for cooling an article or a bundle of articles wrapped
with heat shrink film comprising,
forming a slot in the a [sic] longitudinal direction in at least
a portion of the heat shrink film by separating the film thereby
allowing cold air to circulate through the heat shrink film,
film wrapping the article with the slotted film,
heat shrinking the film,
transporting the film wrapped article to a cooler, and
cooling the film wrapped article.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Farquhar
Ganz
us 3,600,871
us 3,866,386
REJECTIONS
Aug. 24, 1971
Feb. 18, 1975
Claims 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by Ganz.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ganz and Farquhar.
OPINION
Initially, we dismiss Appellant's request to review the Examiner's
restriction requirement (App. Br. 2) because it is not within our jurisdiction.
See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403, (CCPA 1971); MPEP §§ 821,
1201.
2
Appeal2017-005296
Application 13/972,078
Regarding the disputed limitation, "forming a slot in the a [sic]
longitudinal direction" the Examiner initially appears to rely on Ganz's
heating elements 73, 74. Final Act. 2. However, these heating elements 73,
7 4, serve to mate pleats 46, 4 7 not create any type of slot. Ganz. Col. 5, 11.
22-26. The Examiner then turns to rely on local arcuate piercings 51, 52,
formed by piercing elements 75, 76 as the recited longitudinal slot. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 4--5. Appellant argues that Ganz's piercings are akin to "cutting
holes in the heat shrink film" which is exactly the structure Appellant is
attempting to distinguish over by reference to longitudinal slots. App. Br. 3;
Spec. 1.
Even if the arcuate piercings in Ganz could reasonably be considered
a form of "slot" we can see no reason why one skilled in the art would
regard them as "longitudinal" because they do not extend longitudinally any
more than they extend laterally. Accordingly, as the Examiner has not
established this limitation to be met by Ganz, as relied on by the Examiner
for both the anticipation and obviousness rejections, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
3