Ex Parte Gontkosky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

11690261 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/690,261 03/23/2007
31743 7590
Georgia-Pacific LLC
133 Peachtree Street NE
GA030-39
ATLANTA, GA 30303
10/01/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Leo Gontkosky
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.
20258-USA 3425
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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 LEO GONTKOSKY and BARRY B. HUNSBERGER
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Leo Gontkosky and Barry B. Hunsberger (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1-6, 23, and 42-55 as unpatentable over Appellants'
1 The subject application was previously before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board in Appeal No. 2011-011234. See Decision dated Nov. 29, 2013. In
that Decision, the adverse decision of the Examiner was AFFIRMED.
Following that Decision, Appellants reopened prosecution and further
amended the claims.
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) 2 and Futamura (US 7,293,500 B2, issued Nov.
13, 2007); (2) claims 38--41 as unpatentable over AAPA, Futamura, and
Dowd (US 4,242,293, issued Dec. 30, 1980); (3) claims 1-6, 23, and 42-55
as unpatentable over AAPA and Martelli (US 3,797,368, issued Mar. 19,
1974); and (4) claims 38--41 as unpatentable over AAPA, Martelli, and
Dowd. Claims 7-22 and 24--37 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates generally to press forming
systems for manufacturing." Spec. ,r 1, Fig. 1. Claims 1, 42, and43 are
independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A press forming system comprising:
a blanking die for forming paperboard blanks, said
blanking die being driven by a first actuator having closed
loop feedback control;
a forming die for receiving the paperboard blanks
from the blanking die and forming paperboard pressware,
said forming die being driven by a second actuator having
closed loop feedback control, wherein the first actuator is
not mechanically linked to the second actuator in an
operative manner whereby the first actuator does not drive
the forming die and the second actuator does not drive the
blanking die; and
2 Throughout the rejection, the Examiner cites to the Specification paragraphs
3, 4 for Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). See Final Office Action, 2-
6 (hereinafter "Final Act.") ( dated Aug. 4, 2015).
2
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
a control system providing independent control of
the first and second actuators whereby the first actuator
operates independently from the second actuator.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over AAP A and Futamura
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a press forming system including
first and second actuators, each of which has closed loop feedback control,
and "wherein the first actuator is not mechanically linked to the second
actuator in an operative manner whereby the first actuator does not drive the
forming die and the second actuator does not drive the blanking die."
Appeal Br. 40, Claims App.
Appellants contend that Futamura' s "first servo motor 3 5 and second
servo motor 129 are mechanically linked" in that "[b ]oth the first servo
motor 35 and the second servo motor 129 are mechanically connected to the
same screw shaft 40. This screw shaft 40 is the definition of a mechanical
linkage between the servo motors 35 and 129." Appeal Br. 17; see also id.
at 18-19. 3
Although both motors 35, 129 appear to rotate screw 40, screw 40
must be moved up and down to be engaged in order to be rotated by either
one of motors 35 or 129. See Futamura, 10:62-11:8. Stated differently,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation, screw 40 is not connected (i.e.,
mechanically linked) to both motors 35 and 129 at the same time (i.e., in an
operative manner).
3 Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Dec. 21, 2015).
3
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
Appellants contend that Futamura "makes no mention of closed loop
feedback control for its motors." Appeal Br. 18.
In this case, the Examiner notes that "[t]he applied art also may not
show the use of actuator with closed loop feedback control (via use of
sensors to insure proper positioning, velocity, timing, Etc.). However, the
[E]xaminer takes an official notice that such use of 'closed loop feedback
control' is old and well known in the art." Final Act. 3. Appellants do not
provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
Moreover, we note that Figure 8 of Futamura discloses "closed loop
feedback control." See Futamura, Fig. 8; see also Final Act. 2.
Appellants contend that (1) "[t]he Examiner has provided no objective
reasoning or explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to do such multiple and complex modifications to
Futamura first and the AAP A second to arrive at the claimed invention"
(Appeal Br. 19--21) (emphasis omitted); (2) "[t]he Examiner has provided no
evidence it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Futamura to
unlink its sealing station from its cutting station without changing its
principle of operation, or without a major redesign" (id. at 21-22) ( emphasis
omitted); and (3) "[t]here is no reason or benefit to modify Futamura to
arrive at the claimed invention" (id. at 22-24) ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because they do not
address the Examiner's proposed rejection. The Examiner is not proposing
"to modify the secondary reference Futamura to have closed loop feedback
control over its motors 35, 129, and to further modify Futamura to remove
the mechanical linkage between those same two motors, and then modify the
AAP A with this double modified Futamura to arrive at the claimed
4
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
invention," as proposed by Appellants. See Appeal Br. 19--21 ( emphasis
omitted). Rather, the Examiner makes clear in the Answer that AAPA
"discloses the use of press forming system with blanking die an forming die
is old and well known in the art" but is "short on showing the use of multiple
motors in the system being not mechanically linked and being driven in
different speeds." Ans. 8. 4 As such, the Examiner applies the teachings of
Futamura for disclosing the use of multiple motors in the system being not
mechanically linked and being driven in different speeds. See id.; see also
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
"to have substituted the use of a single motor [ of AAP A] by using multi
motors not mechanically connected to gain more control of different stations
within the system, as suggested by Futamura, in order to gain more control
and accuracy of the operations [ within the same system]." Final Act. 3; see
also Ans. 10.
As discussed above, the Examiner also notes that
[ t ]he applied art also may not show the use of actuator with
closed loop feedback control ( via use of sensors to insure proper
positioning, velocity, timing, Etc.). However, the [E]xaminer
takes an official notice that such use of "closed loop feedback
control" is old and well known in the art.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner further concludes that it would have been
obvious "to have modified [ AAP A] in view of Futamura, by using a closed
loop feedback control, as a matter of engineering design choice, in order to
gain more control and accuracy of the operations [ within the same system]."
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 10. Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
4 Examiner's Answer (hereinafter "Ans.") (dated Apr. 28, 2016).
5
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
Moreover, to the extent Appellants are arguing the references must be
capable of bodily incorporation in order to combine their teachings, the test
for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested
in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
( CCP A 1981 ). That AAP A and Futamura may teach additional structure
does not prevent the Examiner from relying on each reference for limited
purposes. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument
apprising us of error in the Examiner's proposed reasoning for the combined
teachings of AAP A and Futamura.
We also are not persuaded that the Examiner engages in impermissible
hindsight in combining the teachings of AAP A and Futamura. See Appeal
Br. 19. The Examiner cites specific teachings in the references themselves,
not Appellants' disclosure, in support of the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for combining the references as proposed in the rejection. See
Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 8, 10; In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ( viewing an argument regarding "impermissible hindsight"
as "essentially a repackaging of the argument that there was insufficient
evidence of a motivation to combine the references").
We further are not persuaded that the Examiner "ignore[s] the
'configured to' claim language." See Reply Br. 5-6 ( emphasis omitted). 5
Rather, in the Answer, the Examiner states that:
The office further maintains that the applied art of
[Futamura] uses different motors/actuators (via 35 & 129) being
5 Reply Brief (hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed June 27, 2016).
6
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
driven at different speeds (column 5, lines 64-67; "the first motor
is controlled by a servo module for the first motor that calculates
a speed"), also ( column 6, lines 4-7; "the second motor is
controlled by a servo module for the second motor that calculates
an instruction based on position"), and further ( column 19, lines
61-67; " .. [.]issues a speed instruction to the servo driven
SD#2A"). It is clear that the applied art uses a controller to
control speed of different operations via using different motors.
Ans. 8-9. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. See Reply Br. 5-
6. 6
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
AAPA and Futamura. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over AAP A and Futamura.
Claims 42 and 44-49
Independent claim 42 recites "a control system providing independent
control of the first and second actuators whereby the first actuator is
configured to drive the blanking die and the second actuator is configured to
drive the forming die at the same time ... with respect to one another."
Appeal Br. 42, Claims App. ( emphasis added).
As an initial matter, the Examiner does not address Appellants'
contention in the Examiner's Answer. See Ans. 2-11. As such, we are
persuaded by Appellants' contention regarding servo motors 35 and 129 of
Futamura working at different times, as opposed to "at the same time," as
6 We note that independent claim 43 does not recite "the first actuator is
configured to drive the blanking die and the second actuator is configured to
drive the forming die at the same time." See Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added);
see also Appeal Br. 42, Claims App.
7
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
recited in independent claim 42. See Appeal Br. 18; see also Futamura,
Figs. 6, 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 42
and 44--49 as unpatentable over AAP A and Futamura.
Claim 43
Appellants present the same arguments for independent claim 43 as
those presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16-24. As discussed above for
claim 1, these arguments are not persuasive. Moreover, we note that
Appellants acknowledge that servo motors 35 and 129 of Futamura work "at
different speeds." See Appeal Br. 18, 21. Accordingly, for the same reasons
stated above for claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 43 as unpatentable over AAPA and Futamura.
Claims 2-5 and 5 0-5 3
Appellants do not present additional arguments for claims 2-5 and
50-53 separate from those presented for claims 1 and 43. See Appeal
Br. 26-27. As discussed above, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 43 as unpatentable over AAP A and Futamura. We
note that Appellants merely recite the claim language for claims 4, 5, 52,
and 53. See id. "A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2011); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) as requiring "more substantive arguments in an
appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
8
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
Therefore, for the reasons stated above with respect to claims 1 and 43, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5 and 50-53 as unpatentable
over AAP A and Futamura.
Claims 6, 48, and 54
Each of claims 6, 48, and 54 recites "wherein the control system
controls a stroke length of the forming die." Appeal Br. 40, 43, Claims App.
In addition to taking Official Notice that "use of control means to control the
stroke length of forming die, is old and well known in the art," the Examiner
cites to documentary evidence to support the conclusion. See Final Act. 3
("See for example US. Patent Nos. 6,845,645, (Fig. 10; column 3, lines 24-
41); 5,761,886, (Fig. 13; column 8, lines 31-40); and/or 5,195,435, (Figs. 1,
11, and 12; column 5, lines 62-68)"); see also Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants do
not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
See Appeal Br. 25-26; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 48, and
54 as unpatentable over AAP A and Futamura.
Claims 23, 49, and 55
Each of claims 23, 49, and 55 recites "wherein the stroke length of the
forming die during a production stroke is a first length, wherein the stroke
length of the forming die during a maintenance stroke is a second length,
and wherein the first length is less than the second length." Appeal Br. 41,
43, 44, Claims App. The Examiner does not address the limitations of these
claims in the Final Office Action or in the Answer. See Final Act. 2--4, 6-8;
9
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
see also Ans. 2-11. As such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined
teachings of AAP A and Futamura disclose "wherein the stroke length of the
forming die during a production stroke is a first length, wherein the stroke
length of the forming die during a maintenance stroke is a second length,
and wherein the first length is less than the second length," as recited in
claims 23, 49, and 55. See Appeal Br. 25-26; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23,
49, and 55 as unpatentable over AAP A and Futamura.
Obviousness over AAP A, Futamura, and Dowd
Claims 3 8-41
Claim 3 8 recites, "[ t ]he press forming system of Claim 1, further
comprising at least one intermediate stop between the blanking die and the
forming die, wherein the intermediate stop retains one or more blanks
therebetween." Appeal Br. 41, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Dowd
for this limitation and concludes that it would have been obvious to further
modify AAP A and Futamura, "by having an intermediate stop between the
blanking die and the forming die, as suggested by Dowd, in order to double
the productivity (column 2, lines 47-49)." Final Act. 4.
Appellants contend that:
A closer read of Dowd makes clear that any increase in
productivity it obtains is not solely due to an "intermediate stop",
rather the drive transmission shown in Figure 2 .... The
removable pin or fence 62 alleged by the Examiner to be the gist
of Dowd' s claim of double productivity merely holds the blanks
on a slideway 3 6 between the cutting station and the forming
station. . . . Indeed, Dowd fails to disclose how or why its
10
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
removable pin or fence 62 1s responsible for increasing its
productivity, if any at all.
Appeal Br. 25 ( emphases omitted).
The Examiner does not address Appellants' contention in the Answer.
See Ans. 2-11. The Examiner further does not address claims 3 9-41 over
AAP A, Futamura, and Dowd in the Final Office Action or in the Answer.
See Final Act. 2--4, 6-8; see also Ans. 2-11. As such, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the combined teachings of AAP A, Futamura, and Dowd
disclose limitations recited in claims 3 8--41. See Appeal Br. 25-26; see also
Reply Br. 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 38-
41 as unpatentable over AAP A, Futamura, and Dowd.
Obviousness over AAP A and Martelli
Claim 1
Appellants contend that Martelli "does not disclose or suggest any
control system that provides independent control, much less closed loop
feedback control, to its six motors (Ml-M4, SMI, and SM2), and there is no
teaching or suggestion in Martelli to arrange its stations so as not to be
mechanically linked by the belt 72." See Appeal Br. 28-31 (emphasis
omitted).
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds that Martelli
shows a use of multiple motors (Fig. 6; via Ml & M4) in a
device, being operated and controlled separately and not
mechanically connected, (column 11, lines 5-20; via
transformers DI & D2). It is clear that Ml & M2 controlled and
linked by DI, while M3 & M4 controlled and linked to D2.
11
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
Further, the linkage between the motors and DI or D2 are not
"mechanically linked", rather electronically linked via
transformers and amplifiers.
Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 8 ("Ml [is] for controlling and driving shaft 28,
while M2 is for controlling and driving shaft 54 ... Ml and M4 are not
mechanically linked, they rather operate separately via transformers D 1 &
D2 through shafts 60 for Ml and 62 for M4" and "[e]ach motor operates
separately with their own transformers and shafts" ( citing 9:45--49, 11: 10-
20) ). Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising
us of Examiner error.
Regarding "closed loop feedback control," similar to that discussed
above with AAP A and Futamura, the Examiner notes that "[ t ]he applied art
also may not show the use of actuator with closed loop feedback control (via
use of sensors to insure proper positioning, velocity, timing, Etc.). However,
the [E]xaminer takes an official notice that such use of 'closed loop
feedback control' is old and well known in the art." Final Act. 5.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of
Examiner error.
Appellants contend that (1) "[t]he Examiner has provided no objective
reasoning or explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to do such multiple and complex modifications to
Martelli first and the AAP A second to arrive at the claimed invention"
(Appeal Br. 31-33) (emphasis omitted); (2) "[t]he Examiner has provided no
evidence it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Martelli to
unlink its sealing station from its cutting station without changing its
principle of operation, or without a major redesign" (id. at 33-34) ( emphasis
12
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
omitted); and (3) "[t]here is no reason or benefit to modify Futamura to
arrive at the claimed invention" (id. at 34--35) ( emphasis omitted).
Similar to that discussed above with the AAPA and Futamura,
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because they do not address the
Examiner's proposed rejection. The Examiner is not proposing "to modify
the secondary reference Martelli to have closed loop feedback control over
its motors (Ml-M4, SMl, and SM2), and to further modify Martelli to
remove the mechanical linkage between those same motors, and then
combine this double modified Martelli with the AAP A to arrive at the
claimed invention," as proposed by Appellants. See Appeal Br. 31-33
( emphasis omitted). Rather, the Examiner makes it clear in the Answer that
AAP A "discloses the use of press forming system with blanking die an
forming die is old and well known in the art," but is "short on showing the
use of multiple motors in the system being not mechanically linked and
being driven in different speeds." Ans. 8. As such, the Examiner applies the
teachings of Martelli for disclosing the use of multiple motors in the system
being not mechanically linked and being driven in different speeds. See id.;
see also Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious "to have substituted the use of a single motor [ of AAP A] by using
multi motors [ not mechanically connected] to [gain more] control [ of]
different stations within the system, as suggested by Martelli, in order to
gain more control and accuracy of [ the different operations within the same
system]." Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 10.
As discussed above, the Examiner also notes that "[t]he applied art
also may not show the use of actuator with closed loop feedback control (via
use of sensors to insure proper positioning, velocity, timing, Etc.). However,
13
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
the [E]xaminer takes an official notice that such use of 'closed loop
feedback control' is old and well known in the art." Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious "to have
modified [ AAP A] in view of Martelli, by using a closed loop feedback
control, as a matter of engineering design choice, in order to gain more
control and accuracy of the operations [ within the same system]." Id.; see
also Ans. 10. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument
apprising us of Examiner error.
Moreover, to the extent Appellants are arguing the references must be
capable of bodily incorporation in order to combine their teachings, the test
for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested
in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. That
AAP A and Martelli may teach additional structure does not prevent the
Examiner from relying on each reference for limited purposes. Appellants
do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error in the
Examiner's proposed reasoning for the combined teachings of AAP A and
Martelli.
We further are not persuaded that the Examiner "ignore[s] the
'configured to' claim language." See Reply Br. 5-6 (emphasis omitted).
Rather, in the Answer, the Examiner states that:
[T]he office maintains that the applied art of [Martelli] uses
different motors being operated at different speeds ( column 9,
lines 46-56; "a variable speed motor Ml ... variable speed motor
M2 ... [.] The speed ratio of motors Ml and M2") also in
( column 6, lines 15-19; "while the speed of operation may be
14
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
varied,"). It is clear that there are different speeds being
modified for different motor in achieving different operation.
Ans. 9. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. See Reply Br. 5---6. 7
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
AAPA and Martelli. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over AAP A and Martelli.
Claims 42 and 43
Appellants present the same arguments for independent claims 42 and
43 as those presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 28-35. As discussed
above for claim 1, these arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the
same reasons stated above for claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 42 and 43 as unpatentable over AAP A and Martelli.
Claims 2-5 and 44-53
Appellants do not present additional arguments for claims 2-5 and
44--53 separate from those presented for claims 1, 42, and 43. See Appeal
Br. 38-39. As discussed above, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 42, and 43 as unpatentable over AAP A and Martelli.
We note that Appellants merely recite the claim language for claims 4, 5, 46,
47, 52, and 53. See id.; In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, for the
reasons stated above with respect to claims 1, 42, and 43, we sustain the
7 We note that independent claim 43 does not recite "the first actuator is
configured to drive the blanking die and the second actuator is configured to
drive the forming die at the same time." See Reply Br. 6; see also Appeal
Br. 42, Claims App.
15
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5 and 44--53 as unpatentable over AAPA
and Martelli.
Claims 6, 48, and 54
Similar to that discussed above with the Examiner's rejection of
claims 6, 48, and 54 over AAP A and Futamura, in addition to taking Official
Notice that "use of control means to control the stroke length of forming die,
is old and well known in the art," the Examiner cites to documentary
evidence to support the conclusion. See Final Act. 5 ("See for example US.
Patent Nos. 6,845,645, (Fig. 1 O; column 3, lines 24-41); 5,761,886, (Fig.
13; column 8, lines 31-40); and/or 5,195,435, (Figs. 1, 11, and 12; column
5, lines 62-68)"). Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or
argument apprising us of Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 37-38; see also
Reply Br. 4--5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 48, and
54 as unpatentable over AAP A and Martelli.
Claims 23, 49, and 55
Similar to that discussed above with the Examiner's rejection of
claims 23, 49, and 55 over AAPA and Futamura, the Examiner does not
address the limitations of these claims over AAP A and Martelli in the Final
Office Action or in the Answer. See Final Act. 4--8; see also Ans. 2-11. As
such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of AAP A and
Martelli disclose "wherein the stroke length of the forming die during a
production stroke is a first length, wherein the stroke length of the forming
16
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
die during a maintenance stroke is a second length, and wherein the first
length is less than the second length," as recited in claims 23, 49, and 55.
See Appeal Br. 37-38; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23,
49, and 55 as unpatentable over AAP A and Martelli.
Obviousness over AAP A, Martelli, and Dowd
Claims 38-41
Similar to that discussed above with the Examiner's rejection of
claims 3 8--41 over AAP A, Futamura, and Dowd, the Examiner does not
address Appellants' contention over AAP A, Martelli, and Dowd in the
Answer. See Ans. 2-11; see also Appeal Br. 36-37; Reply Br. 6. The
Examiner further does not address claims 39--41 over AAP A, Martelli, and
Dowd in the Final Office Action or in the Answer. See Final Act. 4--8; see
also Ans. 2-11. As such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings
of AAP A, Martelli, and Dowd disclose limitations recited in claims 3 8--41.
See Appeal Br. 36-37; see also Reply Br. 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 38-
41 as unpatentable over AAP A, Martelli, and Dowd.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6,
42--48, and 50-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23,
38--41, 49, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
17
Appeal2016-006763
Application 11/690,261
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18