Ex Parte Crittenden

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

10456915 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JERRY G. CRITTENDEN
____________

Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 June 29, 2009
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and STEFAN
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jerry G. Crittenden (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-15, 17, 19, 21-26, 38, and 40. Claims
16, 18, 20, 27-37, 39, and 41-46 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appellant’s representative presented oral argument
on May 14, 2009.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention is directed to a wood composite door skin
having an exterior surface with an outer planar surface area, an inner planar
surface area, and an asymmetric profile that surrounds the inner planar
surface area, which interconnects the inner and outer planar areas. Spec.
2:11-15. Figures 1 and 2 show an exemplary embodiment of at least one
door skin 30. As shown in these figures, the door skin 30 includes an outer
planar surface area 32. Inwardly from this planar area is an asymmetrical
profile labeled as P in figure 1. The asymmetrical profile P has a convex
portion 34 and a concave portion 36; both portions can be varied depending
on consumer preference. Inwardly from the concave portion 36 of the
asymmetric profile P is an inner planar surface area 38. The asymmetrical
profile P is a loop that surrounds the inner planar surface area 38. Spec. 7:9-
22. See figure 1.
Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view of the door skin 30 along line
2-2 of figure 1. As shown in figure 2, outer and inner planar areas 32 and 38
have a thickness, referred to in the art as caliper2, which exceeds the
thickness (caliper) of the convex and concave portions 34 and 36 of the

2 See Webster’s New International Dictionary 379, second definition “2.”
(2nd ed. 1934).
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
3
asymmetrical profile P. Spec. 7:9-22. The asymmetrical profile P allows
the door skin to warp without the doorframe warping because of variations
in temperature and humidity. Spec. 9:10-13. Further, the door skin 30 is
molded from one of the wood composites listed. Spec. 5:17-18 and 9:16-17.
In constructing a door made from the door skins described above,
preferably two identical door skins are secured to a frame 12. See figure 1.
Disposed between the interior surfaces of the door skins is a plate element
70. Plate element 70, best shown in figure 2, provides stability to the door
skins without hindering the warping of the asymmetric profile P adjacent to
the plate element 70. Spec. 9:18-22.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A hollow core door, comprising:
a perimeter frame;
first and second molded wood composite skins,
each of said skins having an exterior surface and
an interior surface secured to opposing sides of
said frame, wherein at least one of said skins has
an outer planar area, an inner planar area, and an
asymmetric profile surrounding said inner planar
area and interconnecting and integral with said
outer planar area and said inner planar area, said
asymmetric profile area having a convex portion
extending outwardly from said exterior surface and
relative to the plane of said outer planar area,
wherein said convex portion has a first caliper,
said outer planar area has a second caliper, and
said first caliper is less than said second caliper.

Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
4
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Green US 5,074,087 Dec. 24, 1991
Lynch EP 0 688 639 A2 Dec. 27, 1995
Nickel3 EP 1 190 825 A2 Mar. 27, 2002

The Appellant relies on the following as evidence of non-
obviousness:
Declaration of Steven Lynch (filed September 20, 2004).

THE REJECTION
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15, 17,
19, 21-26, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Green, Lynch, and Nickel. The Examiner concludes that Green, Lynch, and
Nickel render obvious all finally rejected claims. Ans. 3-6.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

ISSUES
We have carefully reviewed the Appellant’s invention as described in
the Specification, the appealed claims, the prior art applied by the Examiner,
the Examiner’s Answer, and the respective positions advanced by the
Appellant in the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, and the arguments presented by

3 Reference will be made to the translation of the European Patent
Application (EP 1 190 825 A2) to Nickel.
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
5
Appellant’s representative at the oral hearing. As a consequence of this
review, the issues before us are as follows:
(1) Whether Appellant has demonstrated that a wood composite
door skin, with an asymmetrical profile with a convex surface
that extends outwardly from the outer and inner planar surface
areas of the external surface of the door skin, would be beyond
the technical grasp of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
(2) Whether the claimed structural aspects of the door skin with
respect to the asymmetrical profile, the inner planar areas, and
the symmetry and alignment of the door skins relative to the
frame, are shown in the prior art.
(3) Whether the combination of Green, Lynch, and Nickel
renders obvious a plate element disposed between the interior
surfaces of the inner surfaces of the door skins.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact are supported
by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849
F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary
standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Lynch describes a molded wood composite door skin for use in
replicating multipanel doors. Lynch, passim.
2. Lynch describes that the contoured inclined depression profile (the
portion of the door skin that replicates contours and textured
aesthetics of the well known, and expensive, natural wood six-panel
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
6
door) is thinner in caliper than the inner and outer planar areas of the
door skin. Lynch, col. 10, ll. 9-26.
3. Lynch describes that a door skin formed as described in fact 2 has a
relatively uniform density and excellent strength along the portion of
the profile that connects either to the inner or outer planar areas of the
door skin. Additionally, Lynch describes that such a formed door skin
will have excellent paint-holdout and uniformity, without blistering
along the profile. Lynch, col. 10, ll. 26-37.
4. Green describes door skins 22 of composite construction. Figure 1
shows the elevation of the face of the door skin 22 in accordance with
the preferred embodiment. Figure 7 shows an enlarged fragmentary
section along the line 7-7 of the door skin shown in figure 1. As
shown in figure 1, the door skin 22 is provided with a pattern
composed of six panel portions 70. As shown in figure 7, the panel
portions 70 are molded so that some portions 71 extend outwardly,
viz., convex portions, and other portions 72 extend inwardly, viz.,
concave portions, relative to the main plane of the door skin that runs
parallel to a wooden doorframe, to which said door skins would be
secured. The convex portion 71 is connected and integral with the
outer planar area, best designated as 22 in figure 7. The convex
portion 71 extends, connects to, and is integral with the concave
portion. The concave portion is connected to and integral with the
inner planar area 70. As also shown, the door skins 22 are mirror
images, differ in inner planar surface area configuration, and are
symmetrically aligned when attached to the doorframe. Green, col. 4,
l. 65 to col. 5, l. 4 and figures 1 and 7.
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
7
5. Green describes that the door skin 22 is made from a polyester resin
and fibrous glass. Green, col. 2, ll. 33-38. Green also describes that
foam core 20 is between the door skins and fills the space between the
door skins. Green, col. 4, ll. 20-36 and figures 2-7.
6. Nickel describes that highly profiled leaves of profiled interior and
exterior doors can be manufactured from thin-walled skins made from
“a mixture of wood, wood material, and/or fiber particles of annual or
suitable perennial plants and a liquid, heat-setting bonding agent,
preferably an isocyanate.” Nickel, p. 2, para. [0001] and p. 4, para.
[0012].
7. An ordinary and customary meaning of plate is “a smooth, flat,
relatively thin piece of metal or other material” Webster's New World
Dictionary 1090 (David B. Guralnik ed., 2nd Coll. Ed., Simon &
Schuster, Inc. 1984).
8. The Examiner found that the Green’s foam core 20 satisfies the
claimed plate structure. Ans. 4.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“In determining whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious,
neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
When there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue the known options within
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
8
his or technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense.

KSR, at 421.
Burden
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if this
initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the appellant. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Issue (1)
Claims 1 and 17
The Appellant argues that “Green does not disclose or suggest a wood
composite door skin.” App. Br. 10. One reason we find this argument
unconvincing in demonstrating error on the part of the Examiner is because
the Examiner did not use Green to describe a wood composite door skin.
The Examiner utilized Green to show that the particular claimed outer planar
area, inner planar area, and the asymmetrical profile, having a convex
portion adjacent the outer planer area, and a concave portion adjacent the
inner planar area, was a known contour for composite doors at the time of
the Appellant’s invention. Ans. 3-4. See also Fact 4. As such, the argument
is not commensurate with the Examiner’s utilization of Green. While Green
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
9
describes that its molded door skin is made from a polyester resin and
fibrous glass, see Fact 5, Lynch describes that its door skin is made from
wood fibers or wood particles and resin, see Fact 1, and the benefit of having
a thinner caliper for the asymmetrical profile, see Facts 2 and 3.
Additionally, Nickel describes that thin-walled door skins are made from a
mixture of wood, wood material, and/or fiber particles of annual or suitable
perennial plants, and a liquid, heat-setting bonding agent. Fact 6.
Accordingly, the prior art describes molded wood composite door skins and,
moreover, the profile having a thinner caliper.
Another reason we are unconvinced of reversible error on the
Examiner’s part is that while the Lynch Declaration expresses the
technicalities associated with making a molded wooden composite door
skin, Mr. Lynch does not express that these technicalities are beyond the
technical grasp of a person having ordinary skill in the art when viewing
Green, Lynch, and Nickel. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Nor does the
Lynch Declaration state that the teachings of Green, Lynch, and Nickel are
incompatible; just that certain technicalities need to be considered, and the
invention overcomes the enumerated problems stated within the Declaration.
Note that the Supreme Court has emphasized that in many cases persons of
skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle, when the items are familiar. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
420.
To us, the Lynch Declaration just explains the technicalities of fitting
together familiar items to those of ordinary skill in the art. For instance,
Paragraph 4 declares that a wood composite door skin is formed from a mat
of cellulosic material and binder. Lynch Decl., para. 4. Paragraph 5
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
10
explains that as the mat is compressed between the dies and as the caliper
decreases (from the compression), the density increases. Lynch Decl., para.
5. Paragraph 6 explains that cellulosic material does not have a hydraulic
flow characteristic.4 Then, Paragraph 6 discusses that during an accurate
compression process, a cellulosic fiber material will stretch one surface of
the article (the convex surface), while compressing on the opposite surface
(the concave surface). Lynch Decl., para. 6. Paragraph 7 explains that
cellulosic fibers are stretched and pulled as the length ratio increases, which
could lead to unsatisfactory surface quality. Lynch Decl., para. 7.
Paragraph 8 explains that the present invention controls the caliper at
specific portions, particularly the convex portions, in order to have the
density at the convex portion greater than at flat planar portions. Lynch
Decl., para 8. Paragraph 9 explains that the advantage of increasing density
on the convex portion is that it minimizes potential damage of those portions
during handling. Lynch Decl., para. 9. While showing that the use of wood
composite materials may present some challenges in forming contoured door
skins, the Lynch declaration does not establish that it would have been
beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a

4 While Mr. Lynch declares that it is known in the art that cellulosic material
does not flow during compression, and the Appellant argues that Green’s
polymer door skin would flow into the desired configuration, see Reply Br.
5, we find this unconvincing to demonstrate reversible error, because the
argument presupposes, and the Lynch Declaration provides insufficient
statements, as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be
interested or capable of increasing the fiberglass in Green to a point of
preventing the material from flowing into the desired configuration. In other
words, based on insufficient statements to the contrary, a person of ordinary
skill in the art could increase the fiberglass in Green to inhibit the flow in
order to make the fiberglass and polyester door skin form during the
compression of the material that forms the door skin.
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
11
contour such as shown in Green using a wood composite material, varying
compression processing parameters, such as ratio of non-wood/polymer
resin to cellulosic fiber in the composite material, for example, if necessary,
to achieve acceptable flow properties.
Accordingly, we conclude that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would be able to fit the teachings of Green, Lynch, and Nickel together like
pieces of a puzzle to arrive at the claimed invention of a door. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 420. Further, we are unconvinced from our review of the record that
a wooden composite door with an asymmetrical profile and differing
calipers would be beyond the technical grasp of a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In view of the foregoing, Appellant fails to convince us that
the claimed wood composite door skin per se would be beyond the technical
grasp of a person having ordinary skill in the art when having the
combination of Green, Lynch, and Nickel before them.
Issue (2)
Claims 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 21-26
These claims are directed to the structural shape of the claimed door
skin. Green describes the claimed door shape. As shown in figure 7,
starting at the top of the page and figure, the portion designated by reference
label 22 would be considered the outer planar area. Continuing down the
figure, portion 71 starts the asymmetric profile. As shown, the portion
projects away from the outer planar area. The outer projection starts the
beginning of the asymmetric profile’s convex portion. This convex portion
is connected to and integral with the outer planar area. Additionally, the
convex portion continues, connects, and is integral with, a portion (generally
designated by 72) that curves inwardly toward the center of the door. This
inward portion is the concave portion of the asymmetrical profile, and
Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
12
extends from the convex portion to end at the inner planar area, designated
as 70 in figure 1, and the concave portion is connected and integral with both
the convex portion and inner planar area. As also shown, the door skins 22
are mirror images, having differing configurations for the inner planar
surface areas, and are symmetrically aligned when attached to the
doorframe. See Fact 4.
As such, we are unconvinced by the Appellant’s arguments that Green
fails to disclose the claimed structural aspects of the door skin with respect
to the asymmetrical profile, the inner planar areas, and the symmetry and
alignment of the door skins relative to the frame.
Issue (3)
Claims 10, 12, 13, 38, and 40
Claims 10, 38, and 40 recite that the claimed door has a plate
disposed between the inner surfaces of the door skins. Claims 12 and 13
depend from claim 10, and thus incorporate that limitation. Green uses has a
foam core 20, and the foam core 20 that fills the asymmetric profile is
between the inner surfaces of the door skins. See Fact 5. An ordinary and
customary meaning of plate is a smooth, flat, relatively thin piece of
material. See Fact 7. Because core 20 is relatively thick, not smooth nor
flat, it cannot be construed as a plate. The Examiner used the core 20 to
satisfy the plate limitation, see fact 8, and this is the error in the Examiner’s
rejection since the foam core 20 of Green cannot satisfy a plate structure
given an ordinary and customary meaning of a “plate.”
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10, 12, 13, 38, and 40.

Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
13
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has not demonstrated that a wood composite door skin
with an asymmetrical profile with a convex surface that extends outwardly
from the outer and inner planar surface areas of the external surface of the
door skin would not be beyond the technical grasp of a person having
ordinary skill in the art.
(2) The claimed structural aspects of the door skin with respect to the
asymmetrical profile, the inner planar areas, and the symmetry and
alignment of the door skins relative to the frame are shown in the prior art.
(3) The combination of Green, Lynch, and Nickel does not render
obvious a plate element disposed between the inner surfaces of the door
skins.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, and
21-26 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10, 12 13, 38, and 40 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2008-003967
Application 10/456,915
14
mls

JOSEPH W. BERENATO, III
LINIAK, BERENATO & WHITE, LLC
SUITE 240
6550 ROCK SPRING DRIVE
BETHESDA, MD 20817