Ex Parte Owen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2014

12558662 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

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.
12/558,662 09/14/2009 Kevin OWEN 121981-00281 6937
51468 7590 12/16/2014
McCarter & English LLP
ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
245 Park Avenue
NEW YORK, NY 10167
EXAMINER
LEE, JAEYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN OWEN and STEPHEN S. RUDERMAN
____________

Appeal 2013-000124
Application 12/558,662
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 21–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 21 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is
reproduced below:
21. A method of manufacturing a package, comprising the
steps of:
providing a strip of cardboard stock material;
applying a first zipper profile to a first strip of two-sided tape;
applying the first strip of two-sided tape, with the first zipper
profile attached thereto, to the strip of cardboard stock material.

Appeal 2013-000124
Application 12/558,662

2
The Examiner maintains and Appellants, Br. 3, request review of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herz (US 4,341,575), Ausnit (US 4,691,373) and Eads
(US 2006/0228055 A1).1
OPINION2
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the combination of Herz, Ausnit,
and Eads.3 We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer.4
We add the following for emphasis. Appellants principally argue the
process of Herz, Ausnit, and Eads is different from attaching a zipper to a
piece of two-sided tape and, thereafter, applying the first strip of two-sided
tape to a strip of paper or cardboard stock material as required by the
claimed invention. (Br. 4). Appellants have not directed us to evidence to
support their argument.
As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 7-8), the cited art establishes a
person of ordinary skill would have recognized the suitability of applying a
zipper profile to cardboard stock material and the use of double sided tape

1 The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appears in the Final
Action mailed December 20, 2011.
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 21.
3 Appellants mainly present arguments directed to the features of the
independent claim 21. (Br. generally).
4 No Reply Brief has been filed.
Appeal 2013-000124
Application 12/558,662

3
adhesive was recognized for application of a zipper profile. Consequently
the Examiner properly determined that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to adhesively attach a zipper profile to
cardboard stock material in the process of Herz.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
llw