Ex Parte Oguri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12224668 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/224,668 09/03/2008
513 7590 04/04/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kazuyuki Oguri
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.
2008_1528A 2139
EXAMINER
PATEL, VISHAL I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUYUKI OGURI
Appeal2014-009590
Application 12/224,668
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009590
Application 12/224,668
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A process for pretreating a formed article, the process
comprising a step of projecting particles with an average particle size of not
more than 200 µm onto at least a portion of a surface of a formed article that
comprises a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic and interior fibers, so as to
pretreat without causing damage to the interior fibers,
wherein the surface of the formed article having the particles
projected thereon has an arithmetic mean surface roughness Ra that is not
less than 0.3 µm and not more than 2 µm after the step of projecting the
particles.
Appellant (see Appeal Brief, generally) requests review of the
following rejections from the Examiner's Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Roby (Benjamin James Roby, Effect of Grit-
Blasting and Plasma Etching on the Surface Composition and Surface
Energy of Graphite/Epoxy Composites, October 21, 2005, University of
Cincinnati).
II. Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Roby and Appellant's admitted prior art (AAPA) found
in pages 1-2 of the Specification.
2
Appeal2014-009590
Application 12/224,668
OPINION
Prior Art Rejections 1
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add
the following.
The subject matter of independent claim 1 is directed to a
pretreatment process that facilitates the bonding or coating of a formed
article that comprises a resin. Spec. ,-i 1; Br. 6.
The Examiner found Roby discloses a grit blasting process for
pretreating the surface of an elastomeric composite that projects particles
with an average particle size of not more than 200 µm onto at least a portion
of a surface of the composite without causing damage to the interior fibers.
Final Act. 4-5; Roby Abstract, 1, 6, 16, 21, 31. The Examiner found Roby
is silent about pretreating the surface without causing damage to the interior
fibers. Final Act. 5. The Examiner found Roby discloses eliminating the
need for drilling holes in a composite that would damage the load-bearing
fibers. Final Act. 5; Roby 1. The Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art that Roby's method of grit blasting a surface
1 Appellant relies on the same line of arguments in addressing the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 8 in Rejection I. See Appeal Brief, generally.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, and
13. Id. Further, in addressing the separate rejection of claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12,
and 14 (Rejection II), Appellant relies on the arguments presented when
discussing claims 1 and 8. Br. 9-10. Accordingly, we limit our discussion
to independent claim 1. Claims 2-14 stand or fall with this claim.
3
Appeal2014-009590
Application 12/224,668
would not damage the interior fibers of a composite based on this disclosure.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues Roby is directed to the use of grit blasting, a process
Appellant discloses as damaging the interior fibers. Br. 7-8; Spec. iJ 5.
Appellant further argues Roby fails to disclose or suggest pretreating
without causing damage to interior fibers because Roby does not disclose the
condition of the interior fibers once the surface is pretreated with grit
blasting. Id. at 7.
We are unpersuaded by this argument and find no error in the
Examiner's determination that one skilled in the art would understand
Roby's grit blasting does not damage the interior fibers. Ans. 7; Roby 1, 6,
31. Appellant direct us to no portion of Roby that discloses otherwise. In
addition, as noted by the Examiner, Appellant has directed us to no other
evidence showing that the grit blasting process of Roby damages internal
fibers of a composite. Id. at 8.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
1-14 (Rejections I and II) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-14 are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
4