Ex Parte Horne

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

11652058 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/652,058 01/10/2007 Louis Kevin Horne GARL 200203US01 3027
27885 7590 06/19/2012
FAY SHARPE LLP
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
EXAMINER
CHOI, PETER Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LOUIS KEVIN HORNE
____________

Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 27-40 and 59-70. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.1
Appellant claims a reinforced fabric including one or more fiber
groups formed of a plurality of fibers oriented generally parallel to one
another, and one or more mats formed of intersecting threads laid on the
fiber group, wherein the melt point of the threads is lower than the melt
point of the fibers, and the threads are melt bonded to the fibers via the
application of heat.
Representative apparatus claim 27 reads as follows:
27. A reinforced fabric comprising a first fiber group and a
first mat, said first fiber group having a top and bottom surface, said
first mat having an upper and lower surface, said first fiber group
including a plurality of fibers positioned substantially parallel to one
another, said lower surface of said first mat positioned on said top
surface of said first fiber group such that said first mat overlies said
plurality of fibers of said first fiber group, said first mat formed of a
plurality of threads, a plurality of said threads of said first mat
intersecting one another, a plurality of said threads of said first mat
having an outer surface that is formed of a material having a melting
point that is less than a melting point of said fibers in said first fiber
group, at least a portion of said outer surface of a plurality of said
threads of said first mat forming a heat created melted bond with a
plurality of said fibers in said first fiber group, said heat created
melted bond positioned between said plurality of threads of said first
mat and said top surface of said first fiber group, said heat created
melted bond designed to at least partially maintain said fibers in said
first fiber group in position relative to one another.

1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant’s Brief (App. Br.) filed
February 3, 2010, Appellant’s Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 12, 2010,
and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed May 12, 2010.
Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058

3
The references listed below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Fensel 6,524,980 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
Mehdorn 5,508,093 Apr. 16, 1996
McCorsley 2004/0170876 A1 Sep. 2, 2004

The Examiner rejected claims 27, 32, 37, 59, and 60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fensel in view of Mehdorn.
In addition, the Examiner rejected claims 28-31, 33-36, 38-40, and 61-
70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fensel in view of
Mehdorn, and further in view of McCorsley.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for numerous reasons including: (1) the references
alone or in combination fail to disclose certain claim limitations; (2)
McCorsley is not analogous prior art; (3) use of improper hindsight; and (4)
the articulated reasons or motivations for the combinations are either not
convincing or are inconsistent with the teachings of the references.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We will sustain these rejections for the reasons
expressed in the Answer with the comments below added for emphasis.
With regard to claims 29 and 63, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
interpretation of these claims renders them redundant and not further
Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058

4
limiting of the claims from which they depend (App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 5).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s interpretation of claims 28 and 61
requires the first and second mats “to be connected together at a location
spaced from the peripheral edge of the first fiber group” (App. Br. 23).
Appellant states that “[t]he term ‘connected together’ means connected
together, not interconnected together.” (Reply Br. 5). Further, Appellant
points out that claims 29 and 63 recite “a heat created bond”, not “said heat
created bond”, which Appellant contends implies that the heat created bond
of claims 29 and 63 is different from, and in a different location from, the
heat created bond of the claims from which they depend (App. Br. 24).
We have evaluated this argument and find it unpersuasive. “[T]he
doctrine of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in
dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which
they depend.’” Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968,
971-72 (Fed.Cir.1999) (stating that this interpretative tool stems from “the
common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims
are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and
scope”). In the most specific sense, “claim differentiation” refers to the
presumption that an independent claim should not be construed as requiring
a limitation added by a dependent claim. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control
Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing to Nazomi
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC., 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2005)
(“[C]laim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in
dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which
they depend.’” (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177
F.3d 968, 971-72 (Fed.Cir.1999))).
Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058

5
The focus of claim differentiation is on what the claims require and
how they differ in scope, not how the claims are interpreted in the rejection.
Here, claims 29 and 63 recite that “two mats are connected together by a
heat created melted bond at a location spaced from a peripheral edge of said
first fiber group.” As pointed out by the Examiner, these claims do not
require the mats be connected directly together (Ans. 43, 46). Moreover, we
note that these claims do not require that the melt bond be at a location
spaced outwardly from the peripheral edge of the first fiber group. Neither
do claims 28 and 61, upon which claims 29 and 63 depend, respectively,
recite limitations that render claims 29 and 63 redundant without the above
italicized terms. Claims 28 and 61 recite “at least a portion of said outer
surface of a plurality of said threads of said second mat forming a heat
created melted bond with a plurality of said fibers in said first fiber group”
(emphasis added). No location for the recited heat created melted bond is
recited in these claims.
We find that the Examiner’s interpretation of claims 29 and 63 is both
consistent with the Specification and non-redundant, in that claims 28 and
61 do not recite anything about the location of the heat created melted bond.
See Sjoland v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ([W]hile it is
true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a
view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from
the specification may be read into the claims.”). As set forth in the
specification, in one embodiment of the invention, “a pattern of heat bonded
and non-heat bonded regions on the reinforced fabric are formed” (Spec. pg.
9, ll. 23-24). Accordingly, the claim 29 or 63 limitation reciting that a heat
created melted bond is formed at a location spaced from the peripheral edge
Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058

6
of the first fiber group provides a further limitation to the claims from which
they depend. While the Specification and Drawings describe additional
details with regard to the location of this heat created melted bond (that the
two mats are connected directly together via a melt bond spaced outwardly
from the peripheral edge of the first fiber group), it would be an improper
interpretation of the claims to read these details into claims 29 and 63.
Further, we find no significance to the recitation of “a heat created
melted bond” in claim 29 versus a recitation of “the heat created melted
bond” as argued by Appellant. The use of the imprecise article “a” does not
carry any special implication with regard to indicating that it is different
from any of the previously recited bonds. Instead this recitation merely
indicates that the mats are connected together by some heat created bond,
which may be the previously recited bond, or may be a separate bond. As to
the argument that “connected together” does not mean “interconnected
together,” Appellant has not provided, nor do we do find, a relevant or
meaningful distinction between these two expressions.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s interpretation of
claims 29 and 63.

Conclusion
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

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).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-010794
Application 11/652,058

7
sld