Ex Parte Schneider

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2019

14888556 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/888,556 11/02/2015
81029 7590 03/01/2019
A very Dennison Corporation
Brian G. Bembenick
8080 Norton Parkway, 22D
Mentor, OH 44060
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert W. Schneider
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.
5846-US; AD2015002745 1084
EXAMINER
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2019 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):
patentdocket@averydennison.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT W. SCHNEIDER
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to finally reject claims 1, 3-17, and 50. 3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 2,
2015 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated February 2, 2017 ("Final Act.");
Advisory Action dated April 17, 2017 ("Adv. Act."); Appeal Brief filed June
29, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); and Examiner's Answer dated August 15, 2017
("Ans."). There is no Reply Brief.
2 According to the Appeal Brief, A very Dennison Corporation is identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 Claim 2 is cancelled and claims 18--49 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
The Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant's disclosure relates to adhesive articles, release liners, and
related methods of making and using the same. Spec. ,r 2. In particular, the
claimed subject matter is directed to an adhesive article comprising an
adhesive assembly and a release liner assembly, which includes nonadhesive
components, such as nonadhesive particulates, along the release face. Id.
,r 5; see Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. An adhesive article comprising:
an adhesive assembly including a substrate defining a
first face and a second face oppositely directed from the first
face, and adhesive disposed on at least one of the first face and
the second face thereby defining an adhesive face;
a release liner assembly including a release liner
substrate defining a first face and an oppositely directed second
face, a deformable layer disposed on one of the first face and
the second face of the release liner substrate, and a release
coating disposed on the deformable layer thereby defining a
release face; and
randomly distributed nonadhesive components disposed
along the release face;
wherein the adhesive face of the adhesive assembly
contacts with the release face of the release liner assembly, and
at least a portion of the nonadhesive components transferred
from the release face to the adhesive face.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (key disputed claim language italicized and
bolded).
2
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Kennerly et al. US 6,132,829 Oct. 17, 2000
("Kennerly")
Hannington US 2001/0052384 Al Dec. 20, 2001
("Hannington '384")
Hannington US 2007/0154670 Al Jul. 5, 2007
("Hannington '670")
Brasseur et al. US 2014/0010963 Al Jan. 9, 2014
("Brasseur")
Onderisin et al. US 9,240,131 B2 Jan. 19, 2016
("Onderisin")
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10-15, and 50 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. §§ I02(a)(l) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hannington '384
("Rejection 1 "). Ans. 2.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 50 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. §§ I02(a)(l) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hannington '670
("Rejection 2"). Ans. 4.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hannington '384 in view of Kennerly ("Rejection 3"). Ans. 5.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hannington '670 in view of Kennerly ("Rejection 4"). Ans. 7.
5. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hannington '384 in view of Brasseur
("Rejection 5"). Ans. 8.
3
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
6. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hannington '670 in view of Brasseur ("Rejection 6").
Ans. 9.
7. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hannington '384 in view of Onderisin
("Rejection 7"). Ans. 11.
8. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hannington '670 in view of Onderisin ("Rejection 8").
Ans. 12.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer,
Advisory Action, and Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own.
We add the following.
Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10-15, and 50 as a group. Appeal
Br. 11. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 3, 7, 8, 10-15, and 50
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that Hannington '384 discloses all of the
limitations of claim 1 and thus, anticipates the claim. Ans. 2-3 ( citing
Hannington '384, Abstract, ,r,r 16-35, 37--41, Figs. 1---6).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Hannington '384 does not disclose "randomly distributed
nonadhesive components disposed along the release face," as recited in the
claim. Appeal Br. 11-12. In particular, Appellant contends that, in contrast
4
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
to the claimed invention, "Hannington '384 describes nonadhesive
components that are applied in a pattern to the release surface of the release
liner [ and] ... does not describe the use of nonadhesive components that are
only randomly distributed." Id. at 12. Appellant argues that although the
reference discloses that the adhesive article may have additional randomly
distributed nonadhesive material added to it, "there must be a pattern of
nonadhesive material applied to the release liner for, among other things,
improved air egress, repositionability, and slidability." Id. at 12.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection. To serve as an anticipatory reference, "the
reference must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention."
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). On the record before
us, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
determination (Ans. 2-3, 14) that Hannington '384 discloses all of the
elements of claim 1, including the recitation "randomly distributed
nonadhesive components disposed along the release face," and that the
reference anticipates the claim. See Hannington '3 84, Abstract, ,r,r 16-3 5,
3 7--41, Figs. 1---6.
In particular, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 14), Hannington '384
explicitly discloses that the nonadhesive material may be applied in random
locations on the release liner. See Hannington '384 ,r 29 (disclosing that the
non-adhesive material "does not efficiently wet out on the surface of the
release liner" and forms "what appear to be random small beads of ink"),
,r 31 ( describing non-adhesive material formed with "random or patterned
dots"), ,r 5 8 ( disclosing "embedding a random or non-random pattern of non-
5
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
adhesive areas into the surface of a liner" and that "a random pattern of non-
adhesive particulates ... can be applied to the surface of the release liner").
Moreover, as the Examiner further finds (Ans. 14), because claim 1
uses the transitional phrase "comprising," the claim allows for the presence
of other patterned non-adhesive components in addition to the randomly
distributed non-adhesive components.
Appellant's argument at pages 11-13 of the Appeal Brief do not
reveal reversible error in the findings or analysis in this regard. In particular,
Appellant's assertions that the Hannington '384 reference "describes
nonadhesive components that are applied in a pattern" and that "there must
be a pattern of nonadhesive material applied to the release liner" (Appeal
Br. 12) are not persuasive because they are conclusory and mischaracterize
the reference's disclosures, and, without more, are insufficient to rebut or
otherwise establish reversible error in the Examiner's factual findings. In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8,
10-15, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(l) and (a)(2) as being anticipated
by Hannington '384.
Rejections 3, 5, and 7
The Examiner's Rejections 3, 5, and 7 (stated above) are all
obviousness rejections based upon the Hannington '384 reference discussed
above for claim 1. See Ans. 5, 8, 11. Appellant argues that the Examiner's
Rejections 3, 5, and 7 should be reversed for the same reasons previously
discussed above in response to the Examiner's Rejection 1. See Appeal
Br. 15-17.
6
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
for the same reasons previously discussed above in affirming the Examiner's
Rejection 1.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for principally the same reasons discussed above for
affirming the Examiner's Rejection 1, we affirm the Examiner's Rejections
3, 5, and 7.
Rejection 2
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 50 as a group.
Appeal Br. 13. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-
15, and 50 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Hannington '670 is directed to adhesive articles and includes
disclosures similar to the disclosures of Hannington '384. For example,
compare Hannington '670, Title and ,r,r 50-51 with, Hannington '384, Title
and ,r,r 29--30. The Examiner determines that Hannington '670 discloses all
of the limitations of claim 1 and, therefore, anticipates the claim. Ans. 4--5
(citing Hannington '670, Abstract, ,r,r 28-31, 34--71, Figs. 1-18).
In response to the Examiner's rejection, Appellant repeats and
principally relies on the same arguments previously discussed and presented
above in response to the Examiner's Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 13-14. In
particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection should be reversed
because "Hannington '670 fails to teach the use of only randomly distributed
nonadhesive components on the release face" and "teaches away from the
use of just one non-adhesive component." Id. at 13.
7
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and for the reasons
provided by the Examiner at pages 4--5 and 14 of the Answer.
In particular, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's determination (Ans. 14) that Hannington '670 discloses the
"randomly distributed nonadhesive components disposed along the release
face" recitation of the claim. See Hannington '670 ,r,r 50, 53. Paragraph 50
of Hannington '670, for example, explicitly discloses adhesive articles that
"include additional nonadhesive materials randomly distributed, i.e., in no
regular pattern."
Appellant's contentions at pages 13 of the Appeal Brief are not
persuasive because they are largely conclusory and Appellant does not direct
us to sufficient evidence in the record or provide an adequate technical
explanation to support them. De Blauwe, 73 6 F .2d at 699.
Appellant's teaching away argument (Appeal Br. 13-14) is not well-
taken because we will not read into the reference a teaching away where no
such language exists. Cf DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. CH Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (finding that there is no teaching away where the prior art's disclosure
"does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed").
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
8, 10-15, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(l) and (a)(2) as being
anticipated by Hannington '670.
Rejections 4, 6, and 8
The Examiner's Rejections 4, 6, and 8 (stated above) are all
obviousness rejections based upon the Hannington '670 reference discussed
8
Appeal2018-001570
Application 14/888,556
above for Rejection 2. See Ans. 7, 9, 12. Appellant argues that each of
these rejections should be reversed for the same reasons previously
discussed above in response to the Examiner's Rejection 2. See Appeal
Br. 15-17.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error
for the same reasons previously discussed above in affirming the Examiner's
Rejection 2.
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for principally the same reasons discussed above for
affirming the Examiner's Rejection 2, we affirm the Examiner's Rejections
4, 6, and 8.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-17, and 50 are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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
9