Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

13891814 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/891,814 05/10/2013
27367 7590 06/22/2018
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel B. Miller
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.
Pl87.12-0049 1423
EXAMINER
DANIELS, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
docketing@wck.com
tsorbel@wck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL B. MILLER, BRIAN LINDAHL,
and CHRISTOPHER CHOW
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 35--44. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim methods for reducing odors from
laser-processed material. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of reducing odors from a laser processed
material comprising:
laser processing a material by scoring or cutting with a
laser beam to produce a laser processed material having a burnt
odor;
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
retaining the laser processed material in a substantially flat
position to reduce curling; and
heat treating the retained laser processed material by
locally heating the laser processed area to a temperature such that
heat treating alone is sufficient to substantially reduce the burnt
odor.
Walker
Ripley
Noack ( as translated)
The References
us 2,204,520
US 2011/0045237 Al
DE 10 2004 048 360 Al
The Rejections
June 11, 1940
Feb. 24, 2011
Apr. 13, 2006
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
3, 7-12, 35-37, and 40-44 over Noack in view of Ripley, and claims 4, 5,
38, and 39 over Noack in view of Ripley and Walker.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 35-37, and 40-44 and
reverse the rejection of claims 4, 5, 38, and 39.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 35-37, and 4rJ-44
The Appellants rely upon the same arguments with respect to
claims 1-3, 7-12, 35-37, and 40-44 (Br. 9-19). We, therefore, limit our
discussion to one of those claims, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 7-12, 35-37,
and 40-44 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
Noack removes foul-smelling partially-combusted animal protein
odors from laser radiation-processed leather by exposing the leather to
infrared and/or ultraviolet light during or after the laser processing (i1i12---6).
The infrared light is heat radiation, which penetrates the leather to
energetically enrich combustion residues such that they become more
2
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
physically active and thereby diffuse better from the leather and become
more chemically active (i-f 7). The ultraviolet light causes a chemical
reaction of 02 to 03 which decomposes to 02 and O (i-f id.). The O oxidizes
the laser processing-produced foul-smelling partially-burned animal protein
to further bum it so the leather becomes odorless (i-f 8).
Ripley places a laser-burned leather good on a conveyor belt (226) on
which the leather's foul-smelling combustion odor resulting from the laser
burning is absorbed by zinc ricinoleate and then optionally further
eliminated by heat treatment using a heat source, which can be a heating
lamp (i1i120, 23; Fig. 5).
The Appellants assert that "Noack does not teach heating to remove
the odor produced by laser processing. In contrast, Noack teaches using
light irradiation to prevent the odor from being produced" (Br. 10), "Noack
teaches reducing combustion during the processing of the material. See
paragraph [0003]" (Br. 11 ), and "Noack teaches using infrared and/or
ultraviolet light to irradiate the material to reduce combustion and thus
reduce the production of odor, not removing the odor by heating
treating [sic] to a temperature sufficient to substantially eliminate the odor.
See paragraph [0004 ]" (id.).
Noack discloses that laser processing of leather produces foul
combustion odors and that Noack's infrared light and ultraviolet light bum
the residues causing those odors, thereby removing the odors that have been
produced (i1i12, 5-8).
The Appellants assert that Ripley's disclosure that "[ c ]onventional
methods for reducing the odor of lazed leather, such as through chemicals or
UV exposure, have achieved limited to no success" (i-f 5) indicates that
3
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
Noack's treatment with infrared and/or ultraviolet light is ineffective (Br. 11,
12).
The Appellants do not establish that the conventional methods of
which Ripley was aware include Noack's method. Ripley also discloses that
conventional chemical methods have achieved little or no success (i-f 5), but
the method Ripley discloses and considers to be effective is a chemical
method (i-f 20). Noack, likewise, indicates that the disclosed infrared and/or
ultraviolet light treatment method is effective (i1i1 3-8).
The Appellants assert that "Noack as a whole teaches in its terminal
paragraph ([0008)] that 'The partially burned protein products are
combusted by the molecular O and thereby odorless' which when taken as a
whole indicates that heat treatment alone is not sufficient in Noack to
substantially eliminate the odor generated and that ultraviolet light treatment
is also required" (Br. 11 ).
The Appellants' claim 1 does not require rendering the
laser-processed material odorless but, rather, requires substantially reducing
its burnt odor. 1 Noack's disclosure that the infrared light and ultraviolet
light can be used alone or in combination (i-f 4) indicates that the infrared
light which, Noack states, is heat radiation (i-f 7), substantially reduces the
laser-processed leather's burnt odor even when used alone. 2 Noack's 0
provides further burning, which is heat treatment, of the partially burned
protein products to make them odorless (i-f 8). The Appellants' disclosures
1 The Appellants' Specification states that "[p ]referably, at least about
85 percent of the odor is eliminated" (Spec. ,r 41 ), but the Specification does
not indicate the lower limit of the claim term "substantially reduce."
2 Infrared radiation is among the Appellants' preferred sources of heat
(Spec. ,r 29).
4
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
that their heat treating can be accomplished by chemical applications
(Spec. ,r 29) and elevated temperature oxidation (i-f 49) indicate that the
Appellants' claim term "heat treating" includes Noack's further burning via
oxidation by ultraviolet light-generated 0. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("'[D]uring examination proceedings,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification"' (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The Appellants assert that "Ripley states that an odor absorbent must
be used before heat treating" (Br. 12).
Ripley heat treats for further burnt odor elimination after using an
odor absorbent (i-f 23), but Ripley does not indicate that use of an odor
absorbent must precede burnt odor elimination by heat treating.
The Appellants state that "it is believed that [the Appellants'] heating
liberates and[/]or vaporizes or decomposes the residual odor[ -]causing
components produced by laser processing that can be trapped in the material.
See [0029]" (Br. 10).
Noack's infrared radiation makes the odor-causing combustion
residues diffuse (i.e., liberate) better from the leather, and Noack's
ultraviolet light further bums (i.e., decomposes) the residual odor (i1i1 7, 8).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 35-37, and 40-44.
Claims 4, 5, 38, and 39
Claims 4, 5, 3 8, and 39 require that the laser-processed material
comprises manmade polymers.
Walker discloses "a coating composition for leather comprising a
water dispersion of binding and coloring materials [the binding material
5
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
being at least one polymerized acrylic and/or a-methacrylic ester] which
when applied to the leather dries down to a film or coating which is no
longer water soluble" (p. 2, left col. 11. 24--28; p. 2, left col. 1. 72 - right col.
1. 1 ).
The Examiner finds that"[ w ]hen the Walker pigmented coating is
applied to the leather of Ripley and then laser processed to create artistic
effects, it would result in the Walker acrylic coating being heated in the
same manner as the Noack leather" (Final Act. 4), and "the coating would be
applied before laser treatment since the alternative order of steps (laser treat
and then coat with pigmented layer) would simply lead to covering or
obscuring ... the laser treatment" (Ans. 7). The Examiner concludes that
"[i]t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to incorporate the coating of Walker onto the
Noack leather (a) in order to provide an obvious aesthetic or decorative
effect to the Noack leather, or (b) to improve the water resistance of the
Noack leather" (Final Act. 4--5).
The Examiner does not establish that laser treatment of Walker's
coating material would not produce coating material combustion residues
having a foul-smelling burnt odor, or that Noack's disclosure that treatment
with infrared light and/or ultraviolet light is effective for removing burnt
odor from laser-processed leather (i1i15-8) would have indicated to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the infrared light and/or ultraviolet light
treatment would be effective for removing burnt odor from laser processing
Walker's coating material. Nor does the Examiner establish that Walker's
coating applied after laser treatment would obscure the laser treatment.
6
Appeal2017-008327
Application 13/891,814
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the methods claimed in the Appellants' claims 4, 5, 3 8,
and 39.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 35-37, and 40-44 over Noack in
view of Ripley under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 4,
5, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noack in view of Ripley and
Walker is reversed.
The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7