11140727 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

Ex Parte Polk et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 19, 2012

11140727 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

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. 11/140,727 05/31/2005 Dale E. Polk JR. MAE-LRM-01 D/CP/D/C 3983 61872 7590 01/19/2012 MICHAEL A. ERVIN 8202 TALBOT COVE AUSTIN, TX 78746 EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte DALE E. POLK, JR. and DALE E. POLK, SR. ________________ Appeal 2010-010153 Application 11/140,727 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and PETER F. KRATZ, 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 103-120 and 123, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a method for forming a solid article from a fiber-containing viscous material. Claim 103 is illustrative: Appeal 2010-010153 Application 11/140,727 2 103. A method for forming a solid article from a viscous material and fiber, said method comprising: blending the viscous material with the fiber to form a composite material; extruding the composite material and depositing gravitationally said composite material onto a lower mold portion; moving at least a portion of the lower mold portion during gravitational depositing of the composite material, so as to deposit a quantity of composite material on said lower mold portion conforming to mold cavities of the lower mold portion; compressing an upper mold portion against said quantity of composite material, after said quantity of composite material has been gravitationally deposited onto said lower mold portion; and maintaining the quantity of composite material under such conditions that the quantity of composite material hardens within a mold cavity formed between the upper mold portion and the lower mold portion, so as to form said solid article. The References Fennebresque 2,830,925 Apr. 15, 1958 Hendry 3,733,157 May 15, 1973 Lemelson 3,820,928 Jun. 28, 1974 Woody 5,681,514 Oct. 28, 1977 Chen 5,691,391 Nov. 25, 1997 Brink 6,043,313 Mar. 28, 2000 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 103, 105, 106, 109-111, 113, 114, 116, 119, and 123 over Hendry in view of Chen,1 claims 107 and 108 over Hendry in view of Chen and Brink, claim 115 over Hendry in view of Chen and Woody, claims 117 and 118 1 Claim 106 is not included in the statement of this rejection (Ans. 4). However, the Examiner’s inclusion of that claim in the discussion of the rejection (Ans. 5) indicates that the omission was inadvertent. Appeal 2010-010153 Application 11/140,727 3 over Hendry in view of Chen and Fennebresque, and claims 104, 112, and 120 over Hendry in view of Chen and Lemelson. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 103.2 That claim requires gravitationally depositing an extruded composite material. For a disclosure of that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon Hendry (Ans. 4). Hendry continuously injects a plasticized material from a feed member (77)’s passageways (79, 82, 83) into a mold cavity (88) which enlarges as a table (41) which supports the mold cavity (88) is moved relative to the passageways (79, 82, 83) (col. 10, ll. 9-40; Figs. 3, 4). If the table (41) movement speed is too high for the plasticized material flow rate such that the pressure within the mold cavity (88) drops below a preselected value, the table (41) is slowed until that pressure again reaches the preselected value (col. 10, ll. 41-49). The Examiner argues that because Hendry’s plasticized material is injected downwardly into the mold cavity (88) (Fig. 3), the injection is gravitational deposition (Ans. 4, 7). The Examiner also argues that the injection is gravitational deposition because it takes place under the influence of Earth’s field of gravity (Ans. 12). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic 2 The Examiner does not rely upon Brink, Woody, Fennebresque or Lemelson for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claim (Ans. 8-11). Appeal 2010-010153 Application 11/140,727 4 Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Appellants’ Specification discloses that the extruded composite material gravitates a drop distance (d) onto a lower mold (26) (Spec. 25:5- 10; Fig. 6A). That disclosure indicates that the Appellants’ claim term “depositing gravitationally” means that the composite material is deposited due to the force of gravity, not due another force such as injection pressure as in Hendry’s method regardless of whether that force is applied within Earth’s field of gravity. The Examiner has not addressed the Appellants’ Specification and explained how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term “depositing gravitationally” in view thereof encompasses the Examiner’s interpretation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 103, 105, 106, 109- 111, 113, 114, 116, 119, and 123 over Hendry in view of Chen, claims 107 and 108 over Hendry in view of Chen and Brink, claim 115 over Hendry in view of Chen and Woody, claims 117 and 118 over Hendry in view of Chen and Fennebresque, and claims 104, 112, and 120 over Hendry in view of Chen and Lemelson are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED sld