Ex Parte Komiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13201678 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/201,678 08/16/2011 Sakae Komiyama
24978 7590 08/02/2016
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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.
4386.104679 2412
EXAMINER
BROOME, SHARRIEF I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptomail@ gbclaw. net
docket@gbclaw.net
verify@gbclaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAKAE KOMIY AMA, YOSHINORI KOY AMA,
HISANAGA TAKEDA, and YOSHIYUKI IWATA
Appeal2014-009827
Application 13/201,678
Technology Center 2800
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-009827
Application 13/201,678
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a mirror for checking blind spot
that achieves further thickness reduction in the case of imparting flame
resistance to the mirror" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A mirror for checking blind spot, wherein
a single double-sided adhesive tape having a base sheet
with a first surface and a second surface opposite the first
surface, the first and the second surfaces being coated with
adhesives, wherein the first surface is attached directly to a
back surface of a Fresnel mirror formed of a planar transparent
resin plate and the second surface is adapted to be attached
directly to a generally planar surface for supporting the mirror
thereon,
the base sheet is formed of a resin into which a flame
retardant is blended,
the transparent resin plate has a thickness of 0.1 mm to
2.0 mm, and
the double-sided adhesive tape has a thickness of 0.1 mm
to 1. 5 mm.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of JPO 10-086899 ('899), JPO 10-110082 ('082), and
JPO 2004-321565 (Koyama).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding '899 discloses a
single double-sided adhesive tape that has a first surface directly attached to
a back surface of a Fresnel mirror and a second surface directly attached to a
2
Appeal2014-009827
Application 13/201,678
planar surface (App. Br. 8). Rather, Appellants assert, '899 discloses two
double sided adhesive tapes ( 4 and 6) sandwiching a metallic thin plate 5
(App. Br. 8-9). The adhesive tape 4 has one side adhered to the metallic
thin plate 5 and the adhesive tape 6 having a first side attached to the
opposite side of the metallic thin plate and a second side attached to a
surface (App. Br. 9). Thus, neither of the tapes 4 or 6 discloses a single
double-sides tape attached as claimed (id.). We agree with Appellants (App.
Br. 8-12).
The Examiner reads out of the claims the "single double-sided tape"
limitation because of "comprising" language does not preclude the including
the extra features of the combined art (Ans. 2). The Examiner also reads out
the "attached directly" claim limitation by taking the position the claim
language can be broadly interpreted and a structure is not claimed (id.).
However, the Examiner's explanation of how '899 discloses the claim
limitation contradicts the meaning of "directly" (Ans. 3, 5; "Tape 6 is
attached directly to mirror 10 by being attached to plate 5 which is attached
to tape 4 which is attached to mirror 1 O").
Thus, we do not agree '899 discloses a single double-sided adhesive
tape having a base sheet with a first surface directly attached to a back
surface of a Fresnel mirror and a second surface directly attached to a planar
surface, and the base sheet formed of ad transparent resin plate as the
Examiner finds (Final Act. 3; '899 i-f 12; Fig. 1). Because '899 does not
teach or suggest these features, and the remaining references were not relied
on for these features, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2-12 dependent therefrom.
3
Appeal2014-009827
Application 13/201,678
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
4