11800705 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

Ex Parte Edwards

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2013

11800705 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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. 11/800,705 05/07/2007 Christopher M. Edwards TSS102006R 9393 7590 06/03/2013 Timothy S. Stevens 5108 Foxpoint Circle Midland, MI 48642 EXAMINER PLUMMER, ELIZABETH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3635 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2013 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 CHRISTOPHER M. EDWARDS ____________ Appeal 2011-004831 Application 11/800,705 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004831 Application 11/800,705 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Christopher M. Edwards (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject (1) claims 1, 2 and 6-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Soane (US 6,743,830 B2; iss. Jun. 1, 2004); and (2) claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soane. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention “relates to sandwich panels with low density cores.” Spec.1, ll. 9-10; fig. 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A sandwich panel, comprising: outer skins of a rigid material and an inner core comprising a foamed polymer, wherein the properties of the foamed polymer are anisotropic. ANALYSIS Anticipation based upon Soane - Claims 1, 2 and 6-17 Appellant does not present additional arguments regarding the patentability of dependent claims 2 and 6-17 separate from those directed against the rejection of independent claim 1. Br. 12. Therefore, Appellant has argued claims 1, 2 and 6-17 as a group for purposes of the rejection of those claims under § 102(b). Claim 1 is representative of the group and is selected for review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). Appeal 2011-004831 Application 11/800,705 3 Independent claim 1 requires a sandwich panel including an inner core having a foamed polymer, wherein “the properties of the foamed polymer are anisotropic.” Br., Clms. App’x. Appellant argues that Soane fails to teach “a sandwich panel wherein the properties of the foamed polymer are anisotropic.” Br. 9. Appellant contends that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “anisotropic” is “exhibiting properties with different values when measured in different directions.” Id. Appellant argues that (1) Soane teaches “a sandwich panel wherein the properties of the foamed polymer have a gradient or are stratified;” (2) “[a]nisotropic means different properties in different directions but that in any specific direction the properties are constant. A property gradient on the other hand means properties that vary in one direction;” (3) “Soane[’s] gradient foamed polymer having a gradient in properties from its surface to its core is not a foamed polymer having anisotropic properties because Soane . . . [does] not disclose a morphology of the pores that would produce a foamed polymer having anisotropic properties;” and (4) “Soane[’s] stratified foamed polymer is not a foamed polymer having anisotropic properties. The fact that Soane . . . discloses ‘differing morphology of the pores’ is not sufficient.” Id. at 9-11. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). At the outset, we note that Appellant’s Specification does not expressly define the term “anisotropic” or otherwise indicate that this term is used in a manner other than its ordinary and customary meaning. We further note that Appellant’s Appeal 2011-004831 Application 11/800,705 4 proffered definition of the term “anisotropic,” (i.e., exhibiting properties with different values when measured in different directions, see Br. 4), is consistent with Appellant’s use of this term in the Specification (see Spec. 3, ll. 2-4; 4, ll. 12-13; fig. 1). The Examiner found that Soane teaches “a sandwich panel (column 6, lines 44-45), comprising an outer skin of a rigid material (column 6, lines 44-54; column 5, lines 3-5) and an inner core comprising a foamed polymer (column 7, lines 4-11), wherein the properties of the foamed polymer are anisotropic (column 5, lines 23-33).” Ans. 3. The Examiner further determined that an object that has a gradient or is stratified can also be anisotropic. Here, Soane . . . teaches that the foamed polymer [can] have a gradient from the surface of the wallboard to the center of the core (column 5, lines 25-27) or have an asymmetrical gradient (column 5, lines [2]8-30). When measuring the properties of the foamed polymer along the axis from the wallboard to the core, the properties [of] the foamed polymer would be changing. When measuring the properties along an axis that is parallel to the wallboard and the core, the properties would be constant. Because there are now unequal properties along different axes, different values would be measured in different directions. Id. at 6. The Examiner’s interpretation of the term “anisotropic” is consistent with Appellant’s Specification and with Appellant’s proffered definition of the term “anisotropic” discussed supra. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Soane teaches that the properties of the foamed polymer are anisotropic is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant has not Appeal 2011-004831 Application 11/800,705 5 provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Soane are in error. As such, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 and of claims 2 and 6-17, which fall with claim 1, as anticipated by Soane. Obviousness over Soane - Claims 3 and 5 Regarding dependent claims 3 and 5, Appellant argues that (1) “Nowhere does Soane . . . suggest any advantage to a foamed polymer core comprising elongated or ovaloid bubbles oriented perpendicularly to the faces of the panel;” and (2) Soane “does not suggest any advantage to the combination of such a foamed polymer core having anisotropic properties together with geometric shapes of denser material oriented perpendicularly to the faces of the panel.” Br. 13-14. At the outset, we note that the reason to modify the reference may often prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art to do what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by an applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner found that Soane (1) “[teaches] that the bubbles can be elongated (column 2, lines 26-31);” and (2) “teaches that the foamed polymer core can contain geometric shapes of denser material (column 2, lines 49-51).” Ans. 5. The Examiner reasoned that Soane “teaches elongated bubbles (column 2, lines 26-31), and teaches that the bubbles can be used in any pattern (column 2, lines 48-66) in order to vary the different Appeal 2011-004831 Application 11/800,705 6 properties of the foam. . . [such as using] the arrangement to create the different gradients.” Id. at 7. Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings and stated reasoning with respect to Soane are in error. As such, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 5 as unpatentable over Soane. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner as to claims 1-3 and 5-17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh