Ex Parte Mourad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2017

12695007 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/695,007 01/27/2010 Sabri MOURAD 127507-07303 7046
141216 7590 10/06/2017
McCarter & English, LLP / Albany International
245 Park Avenue
27 th Floor
New York, NY 10167
EXAMINER
HANDVILLE, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/06/2017 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):
NY docket @ mccarter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SABRI MOURAD and JONAS KARLSSON
Appeal 2017-003574
Application 12/695,007
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 19—34. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added):
1. An industrial fabric for the production of nonwovens comprising a
plurality of through voids, said through voids each comprising:
a first opening associated with a top surface of said fabric, the top
surface being a first outside surface of said fabric;
1 The real party in interest is stated to be interest Albany International Corp.
(Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-003574
Application 12/695,007
a second opening associated with a bottom surface of said fabric, the
bottom surface being a second outside surface of said fabric, and
at least one raised edge circumferentially adjacent to at least one of
said first and second openings, wherein said raised edge forms a continuous
raised rim around said opening.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
(a) Claims 1—7, 27, and 34 as being unpatentable over US Patent No.
4,446,187 to Eklund (hereinafter “Eklund”);
(b) Claims 8 and 27 as being unpatentable over Eklund in view of
U.S. Patent No. 6,630,223 to Hansen (“Hansen”);
(c) Claims 19-26, 28, 29, 32, and 33 as being unpatentable over
Hansen in view of Eklund;
(d) Claim 30 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Eklund
further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,144,479 to Davis (“Davis”); and
(e) Claim 31 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Eklund
further in view of Davis.
Appellants argue the claims as a group, and focus on limitations
common to independent claims 1,19 and 23 (Br. generally). Accordingly,
all the claims stand or fall with their respective independent claim. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[Rjejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
2
Appeal 2017-003574
Application 12/695,007
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with
approval inKSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants’ position that the Examiner has not met the burden in this case
for substantially the reasons set forth by Appellants in the Brief.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of all the claims on
appeal.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
“[Djuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in
patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.); Cf. Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
(“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term.’” (Internal citation omitted)).
Appellants point out each independent claim requires that the second
opening of each through void is associated with a bottom surface which is an
outside surface of said fabric, and their Specification explicitly shows in
Fig. 2A that the fabric is not bonded to other structures (Br. 10). Appellants
3
Appeal 2017-003574
Application 12/695,007
contend that the Examiner erred in his position that the foil surface of
Eklund bonded to the reinforcement structure is an outside surface of the
fabric (Br. 9, 10).
While we appreciate the Examiner’s position that the outside surface
of the foil layer 1 of Eklund abuts the reinforcement structure layer 3, we
agree with Appellants that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “outside
surface of said fabric” consistent with their Specification does not
encompass the interior boundary between adjacent layers of the fabric of
Eklund. Each independent claim de facto requires that the first and second
openings of each through void must open onto the outside surfaces of the
“industrial fabric” as recited (i.e., the openings are associated with the top
and bottom outside surfaces of the industrial fabric), and as depicted in the
figures and described in the Specification. Designating one layer of the
multilayer fabric of Eklund to the exclusion of other layers as “the industrial
fabric” is an unreasonable interpretation. Because the holes in Eklund’s foil
layer are formed after the foil is combined with the reinforcement structure
(see col. 3,11. 32-38), the Examiner’s reliance on these holes as open to the
second outside surface is unfounded.
The Examiner does not proffer sufficient reasoning or rely upon any
other reference to cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 1—8 and 19—34 which
all rely upon the Examiner’s flawed interpretation of the claim language.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal are
reversed.
REVERSED
4