Ex Parte Praller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 7, 2017

13028622 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 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.
13/028,622 02/16/2011 Andreas Praller P10C021 9136
20411 7590 07/07/2017
The Linde Group
200 Somerset Corporate Blvd.
Suite 7000
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
EXAMINER
HAUTH, GALEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2017 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 TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS PRALLER, MIKAEL ORSEN, and
GUNTER MAGNUS
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,6221
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a gas injection
molding method in which a flushing gas is fed into the cavity prior to
1 Appellants identify Linde AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
injecting a melt into the cavity. Specification filed February 16, 2011
(“Spec.”), Abstract.
Claim 1—the sole independent claim—is representative.
1. A method for producing plastic parts according to the gas
injection molding method, wherein a molding tool is dosed to
form a cavity in the interior of the molding tool, a plastic melt
is injected into the cavity and a compressed gas is subsequently
injected into the cavity, characterized in that a flushing gas is
guided into the cavity prior to the injection of the melt, thereby
partially displacing air present in the cavity and reducing the
oxygen content in the cavity.
Corrected Claims Appendix filed May 20, 2016.
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 over Shah2 in view of Joyner;3
II. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 13 over Loren4 in view of
Joyner;
III. Claim 3 over Loren in view of Joyner and Peters;5
IV. Claim 5 over Loren in view of Joyner, Peters, and
Kijima;6 and
V. Claims 9-12 over Loren in view of Joyner and Hendry.7
2 Shah et al., US 5,558,824, issued September 24, 1996.
3 Joyner, US 2006/0255512 Al, published November 16, 2006.
4 Loren, US 4,942,006, issued July 17, 1990.
5 Peters et al., US 2009/0026649 Al, published January 29, 2009.
6 Kijima et al., US 2009/0140205 Al, published June 4, 2009.
7 Hendry, US 4,201,742, issued May 6, 1980.
2
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
DISCUSSION8
We have reviewed the grounds of rejection set forth by the Examiner,
Appellants’ arguments, and the Examiner’s response to the proffered
arguments. On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred
reversibly and we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the reasons expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer. We add
the following.
Appellants argue the patentability of claims subject to Rejections I to
IV, but do not proffer any argument as to Rejection V. See generally Appeal
Br. Apprised of no reversible error in the Examiner’s Rejection II, and in
Rejection V in the absence of argument, we will affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9-12 subject to Rejection V.
Rejection I
The Examiner relies on Shah for its disclosure of a method for
producing plastic parts in which a molding tool forms a cavity, a flushing
gas is guided into the cavity, a plastic melt is injected into the cavity, and a
compressed gas is subsequently injected into the cavity. Final Act. 2-3
(citing Shah, Abstract, col. 2,11. 40^45, col. 3,11. 12^40).
Joyner also discloses a method for producing plastic parts. The
Examiner finds Joyner teaches a method in which a molding tool forms a
cavity, a flushing gas is guided into the cavity, and a plastic material is
8 We refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action dated August 27,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 2, 2015, the Corrected
Claims Appendix, and the Examiner’s Answer issued August 16, 2016
(“Ans.”).
3
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
injected into the cavity, followed by injection of a compressed gas. Final
Act. 3 (citing Joyner, Abstract; || 53, 55; Figs. 10, 12). The Examiner—
finding that it is not explicitly stated in Shah that air is purged from the
cavity or that the oxygen content is decreased—relies on Joyner for its
teaching that the flushing gas displaces the air present in the cavity and
reduces the oxygen content and that by doing this, it is possible to prevent
adverse reactions between the plastic and oxygen or air contaminants,
thereby improving surface features of the finished part. Final Act. 3 (citing
Joyner | 53).
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed
with the cited prior art, at the time of the invention, would have found it
obvious to purge existing air from the mold of Shah as taught by Joyner in
order to prevent adverse reactions between the plastic and other air
contaminants. Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that “[n]o one having ordinary skill in the art
recognized that the air/oxygen [in the mold prior to injecting the plastic
material] could cause surface defects in the finished plastic part.” Appeal
Br. 12. Appellants further contend that “because there was no appreciation
that the air originally present in the mold cavity is responsible for the surface
defects of the final plastic part. . . there is no motivation to combine Shah
and Joyner [to arrive at the claimed invention] as these references did not
recognize this problem.” Appeal Br. 12-13.
On this record, we are unpersuaded that there was not an appreciation
in the cited prior art that air originally present in the mold cavity could have
a negative impact on surface quality, particularly where it is not disputed
that Shah recognized the negative impact as to the gas used to expand the
4
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
plastic shot (see Appeal Br. 12,11. 1-7) and Appellants proffer no cogent
argument that Joyner does not likewise recognize air originally present in the
mold cavity could have negative effects on quality (see generally Appeal
Br.). See, e.g., In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper
to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”) (citation omitted); see also In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750
(CCPA 1976) (A prior art reference is not limited to its preferred
embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art.). Appellants fail to explain why one skilled in the
art would not have been expected to draw from both Shah and Joyner that
air/oxygen in the mold, regardless of when it is introduced, could have
negative effects on quality.
Further, Appellants’ argument fails to explain why one of ordinary
skill would not have found it obvious to reduce the air/oxygen in the mold
prior to injecting the plastic when it was known that air/oxygen could be
reactive and cause defects when used to expand the plastic shot. KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
For these reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 over Shah in view of Joyner.
Rejection II
The Examiner relies on Loren for its disclosure of a method for
producing plastic parts which includes, inter alia, guiding a flushing gas into
a molding tool cavity, followed by injection of a plastic melt into the
molding tool cavity, and a compressed gas. Final Act. 4 (citing Loren col. 8,
5
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
11. 3-25). As relied on by the Examiner, Loren teaches flushing the mold
with nitrogen. Final Act. 4 (citing Loren col. 4,11. 35-37).
Joyner is again relied on, as above in Rejection I, for its disclosure
that it is known to use a flushing gas to displace air present in the mold
cavity to reduce the oxygen content for the benefit of preventing adverse
reactions between the plastic and oxygen or air contaminants. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have found it obvious “to purge existing air from the
mold of Loren as taught by Joyner prior to pressurizing the mold with inert
gas, because both relate to injection molding with inert gas sources
presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so prevents any
adverse reactions between the plastic and oxygen or other air contaminants.”
Ans. 4.
Appellants contend that Loren teaches pre-pressurizing the mold prior
to plastic injection and that “[t]he mold cavity must remain closed so that no
gas escapes during the pre-pressurizing” and, as such, there is no removal of
air. Appeal Br. 15. Appellants further contend, as argued as to Shah in
Rejection I, that “Loren is not aware that the air/oxygen will cause problems
with the finished part” and proffer, as to Joyner, explanations why it is
necessary to minimize the oxygen in the mold in order to avoid an unsuitable
result. Appeal Br. 16-17. Appellants again contend that “[n]o one having
ordinary skill in the art recognized that the air/oxygen could cause surface
defects in the finished plastic part” and, essentially on this basis, argue that
the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over Loren in view Joyner.
Appeal Br. 17.
6
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner reversibly
erred. As to the argument that the combination teaches only addition of a
flushing gas, it fails to address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner
grounded on Joyner providing clear motivation for removal of air/oxygen
with a flushing gas, not merely addition of a flushing gas, and Appellants
proffer no reason why Loren’s apparatus could not be flushed to remove
air/oxygen prior to the pre-pressurization. Absent an assertion that the
proposed modification would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention, we “take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ” and find a person of ordinary skill would have overcome those
difficulties within their level of skill. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
In sum, on this record, we are unpersuaded that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have been led to the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in seeking to avoid adverse reactions between
the plastic and oxygen or other air contaminants.
As to Appellants’ further comment that “[t]he present invention does
not aim to increase pressure” (Appeal Br. 16), an unclaimed feature cannot
impart patentability to the claims. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
For these reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 13 over Loren in view of Joyner.
Rejections III and IV
In Rejection III, the Examiner relies on Peters for its teaching that it
was known in the art to use a mixture of an inert gas such as nitrogen with a
reducing gas to decrease the oxygen content within a mold. Final Act. 5
7
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
(citing Peters 17). In Rejection IV, the Examiner further relies on Kijima
for teaching that “common reducing gases known in the art at the time the
invention was made include ammonia, hydrogen and carbon monoxide for
the purposes of decreasing the oxygen content of the environment.” Final
Act. 7 (citing Kijima 1211).
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed
with the cited prior art, would have found it obvious to include a reducing
gas to further reduce the presence of oxygen, including the particular
reducing gases in Kijima. Final Act. 5-7.
Appellants do not proffer arguments directed to the additional
teachings or the motivation for including in the combination of Loren and
Joyner a reducing gas, but rather rely on the same general arguments as to
Rejection II addressed above. See Appeal Br. 18-21. Having not found the
arguments persuasive for the reasons explained above, we likewise find
them without merit as to Rejections III and IV.
For these reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in either the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 over Loren in view of Joyner and Peters or
of claim 5 in further view of Kijima.
On balance, a preponderance of the evidence of record weighs in
favor of the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 is AFFIRMED.
8
Appeal 2016-008021
Application 13/028,622
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9