Ex Parte Machamer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 17, 201612751014 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121751,014 03/31/2010 David E. Machamer 24978 7590 06/21/2016 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. 5141.106020 9854 EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2016 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 DAVID E. MACHAMER and THOMAS S. SLAGER Appeal2014-002080 Application 12/751,0141 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. PETTING, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David Machamer and Thomas S. Slager ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify "Tamarack Products, Inc." as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-002080 Application 12/751,014 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below. 1. A method for affixing rigid windows of transparent material in a continuous manner to plural folding cartons each having at least one first fold score line thereon, the method comprising the steps of: providing a moving web of rigid window material in a continuous manner; forming a second fold score line in the moving web of rigid window material; cutting spaced notches along said second fold score line in the moving web of rigid window material, wherein the step of forming said second fold score line and cutting spaced notches along said second fold score line includes passing the moving web between and in contact with a rotary cutting die and a rotary anvil feeding cylinder; pneumatically removing and collecting notch waste produced in the cutting of spaced notches in the moving web of rigid window material; changing the continuous motion of the moving web to stop-and-go motion; applying an adhesive in a spaced manner to the stop-and- go moving web of rigid window material adjacent the second fold score line therein; cutting said stop-and-go moving web so as to form plural individual window patches, wherein each window patch has adhesive thereon and includes a second fold score line and at least one notch therein; providing plural folding cartons in a spaced, continuous and non-interrupted manner; and applying one or more of said window patches to each of said folding cartons, wherein the adhesive on each of said one or more window patches is in contact with an associated folding carton and said second fold score line on said one or more 2 Appeal2014-002080 Application 12/751,014 window patches is aligned with a first fold score line on said associated folding carton. Appeal Br., Claims App. A-1-A-2. Rejections Appellants seek review of the following rejections: I. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-14, 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dupuy (US 4,826,004, iss. May 2, 1989), Fuller (US 5,555,786, iss. Sept. 17, 1996), and Sauerman (US 3,572,222, iss. Mar. 23, 1971); II. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dupuy, Fuller, Sauerman, and Nunley (US 5,087,237, iss. Feb. 11, 1992); III. Claims 14--16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dupuy, Fuller, Sauerman, and Chesnut (US 4,205,596, iss. June 3, 1980); and IV. Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dupuy, Fuller, Sauerman, and Martin (US 4,545,780, iss. Oct. 8, 1985). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS The Examiner provides detailed rejections of the claims (Final Act. 2- 8 (mailed Nov. 30, 2012)), and, in the Response to Argument section of the Answer, fully addresses each argument raised by Appellants in their Appeal Brief. None of Appellants' arguments persuade us of Examiner error. 3 Appeal2014-002080 Application 12/751,014 Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's findings as though they were our own, and we sustain each rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--23. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation