Ex Parte Seidler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13057005 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/057,005 04/11/2011 Rouven Seidler
34704 7590 12/21/2018
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
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.
10-470 8866
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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 ROUVEN SEIDLER and PETER CHABRECEK
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BRIAND. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Substitute Specification of
February 1, 2011 (Sub. Spec.) (although the title of this document in the
electronic file is "Specification-Amendment Not Entered," there is no
evidence that the Substitute Specification was not entered, and, in fact, Pre-
Grant Publication 2011-0206945 contains the same amendments as the
Substitute Specification, indicating that the Substitute Specification was
entered), Final Office Action of November 22, 2016 (Final), Appeal Brief of
July 28, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of October 18, 2017 (Ans.),
and Reply Brief of December 18, 2017 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § I34(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 42--46, 48, and 50-52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Suzuki3 in view ofBakker, 4 Le Masson, 5 Sims, 6
and Ono 7 and claims 42--46 and 48-52 over those references, adding
Kraemling. 8 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to articles including a woven fabric of plastic
filaments comprising a monofilament of polyurethane (PU) or polyester,9
which is colored black. See, e.g., claims 42, 43. The woven fabric has two
mutually opposing surfaces and a metallization is applied on one surface of
the opposing surfaces. See, e.g., claims 42, 43. The woven fabric is placed
between glass or plastic plates. See, e.g., claims 42, 43.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sefar AG. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Suzuki et al., WO 2006/030254 Al, published Mar. 23, 2006.
4 Bakker et al., US 3,305,623, issued Feb. 21, 1967.
5 Le Masson et al., US 6,503,636 Bl, issued Jan. 7, 2003.
6 Sims et al., US 5,012, 041, issued Apr. 30, 1991.
7 Ono et al., US 4,208,318, issued June 17, 1980.
8 Kraemling et al., US 5,849,402, issued Dec. 15, 1998.
9 Although originally filed claim 6 provides written descriptive support for
forming mono filaments of polyurethane (PU) or polyester (Sub. Spec. ,r 22),
the Specification is silent about monofilaments of polyester and, therefore,
the claim language directed thereto lacks antecedent basis in the
Specification. See 3 7 C.F .R. 1. 7 5 ( d)( 1) ("The claim or claims must conform
to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the
terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent
basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be
ascertainable by reference to the description."); see also MPEP § 608.0l(o).
This defect does not, however, prevent us from reviewing the issues on
appeal.
2
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
The Specification describes three embodiments for the assembly of a
woven fabric within glass or plastic plates. In the first embodiment, the
woven fabric web is fastened to one side of a glass or plastic plate by means
of an interposed film-like plastic layer and, preferably to another glass or
plastic plate by means of another interposed film-like plastic layer. Spec. ,r
11. The preferred first embodiment is shown in Figure 2, where fabric web
10 is inserted between glass plates 30 with a thin film 32 of polyvinyl
butyral (PVB) interposed between the respective glass plates 30 and fabric
web 10. Spec. ,r 24.
Claim 42 is directed to the first embodiment. We reproduce claim 42
with reference numerals from Figure 2 to further illustrate the subject matter
encompassed by claim 42:
42. A surface piece, comprising:
a woven fabric web [Fig. 1: 10] of crossing threads [12,
14] comprising plastic filaments, the woven fabric web [10]
having two mutually opposing surfaces and openings formed in
the woven fabric web,
wherein the woven fabric web [10] has a metallisation
[Fig. 5: 18] applied on one surface of the opposing surfaces,
wherein between 15 and 80% of the fabric web [10] is
configured in the form of network intermediate spaces,
wherein the metallisation [ 18] has a thickness in the
range between 50 and 200 nm, and
wherein, on both surfaces, the woven fabric web [10] is
fastened with an interposed plastic film layer [Fig.2:32] on one
of a glass and plastic plate [30],
wherein the plastic filaments comprise a monofilament of
Pu [ sic, PU] or a polyester which is colored black.
3
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
Appeal Br. 13 (claims appendix).
Claim 43 is directed to the third embodiment. In this embodiment, the
fabric web is inserted between plastic plates and the assembly heated to fuse
and mechanically bond the plastic plates to the fabric web. Spec. ,r 13. This
embodiment is shown in Figure 4, which shows fabric web 10 between a
pair of plastic plates 50. Spec. ,r 26.
There is a second embodiment, shown in Figure 3, in which fabric
web 10 is clamped between two glass layers 40 at the edge to form a cavity
42 between the glass layers 40 and fabric web 10. Spec. ,r,r 12, 25. The
cavity is evacuated or, alternatively, has a protective and/or inert gas filling.
Id. We note that the second embodiment is outside the scope of claims 42
and 43. 10
OPINION
Both of the Examiner's rejections rely on a combination of teachings
from Suzuki, Bakker, Le Masson, Sims, and Ono. Final 2-6. We agree with
Appellants that the prior art does not suggest what Examiner finds it to
suggest. Appeal Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2-7.
Suzuki is directed to an improvement of sputtering metal onto a textile
that may be formed of synthetic fibers such as polyester fibers. Suzuki ,r 10.
The metal-coated textile product is said to be suitable for clothing, swim
1° Claim 52 attempts to limit claim 42 to an assembly with a cavity
containing a vacuum, a protective filling or an inert gas filling, but because
claim 42 is not broad enough to encompass the third embodiment, claim 52
is improperly dependent on claim 42. This defect does not prevent us from
reaching the issues on appeal because Appellants do not argue claim 52
separately.
4
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
wear, diving suit, tent, cushion, wall paper, curtain, carpet, protective cover,
screen window, equipment casing, and various other items. Suzuki ,r 2.
Bakker and Sims are directed to radiofrequency (RF) or
electromagnetic inference (EMI) shielding windows that contain metal
screens placed between panes of glass or Plexiglas. Bakker, col. 1, 11. 9-29;
Sims, col. 1, 11. 6-10, col. 2, 11. 16-39.
Le Masson and Ono are not directed to screens or screen-containing
windows. Le Masson is directed to a film of polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) that is sputter coated with thin heat-reflective and anti-reflection
metal films. Le Masson, col. 1, 11. 5-8, col. 2, 11. 6-29. The resulting metal-
coated PET film is sandwiched between two panes of glass with the aid of
adhesive films. Le Masson, col. 2, 11. 13-17. Ono is directed to a method
for coloring a thermoplastic resin with a carbon black to obtain a completely
black to bluish-black thermoplastic resin. Ono, col. 1, 11. 5-7, 54--58.
The Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses a metallized woven
polyester fabric that can be used as a window screen and relies on Bakker
for a suggestion to construct a window screen with a porosity within the
range of the claim, and for placing the window screen between glass panes.
Final 2-3. The Examiner acknowledges that Bakker does not teach
fastening the window screen to the outer glass panes via a plastic adhesive
film layer and turns to Le Masson, finding that it was known in the window
screen art to attach glass panes to a middle layer with PVB layers. Final 3.
We agree with Appellants that the combination does not teach or
suggest fastening a metalized polymer woven fabric with an interposed
plastic film layer between two panes of glass or plastic plate as required by
5
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
claim 42 or a woven fabric mechanically bonded to plastic plates as required
by claim 43. Appeal Br. 7-10.
First, Le Masson is not concerned with the same problems as Bakker.
Le Masson applies thin layers of metal onto a PET film and creates a
laminated window by interposing adhesive layers with the metallized PET
between glass panes. Le Masson, col. 2, 11. 6-17. Le Masson is concerned
with heat reflection and not electrical conductivity. Id. Bakker is
particularly concerned with conducting electricity through the metal wire
screen 3. Bakker, col. 1, 11. 9--45. To preserve electrical conductivity to the
enclosure, Bakker spot welds the metal mesh 3 to a metal channel strip 5 and
otherwise attaches the structure to the enclosure to obtain good electrical
contact between the mesh and enclosure. Bakker, col. 2, 11. 4--31. The
Examiner has not established that the ordinary artisan would have used PVB
adhesive in the manner of Le Masson in the window of Bakker.
Second, Suzuki only suggests making a metal-coated plastic textile for
a screen window. There is no suggestion in Suzuki for placing the textile
between glass or plastic plates. Bakker teaches placing a metal mesh
between window panes for RF shielding. Bakker, col. 1, 11. 9-29. There is
no convincing evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art would have
placed the plastic-coated textile of Suzuki between window panes, which
would block air flow, nor is there convincing evidence that Suzuki's metal-
coated plastic textile would have the RF shielding properties required in
Bakker's RF shielded window.
The Examiner's application of Kraemling does not overcome the
deficiencies discussed above.
6
Appeal2018-002091
Application 13/057,005
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7