Jo Won. Lee et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2019

14132325 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2019)

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.
14/132,325 12/18/2013 Jo Won LEE 1224.119 5343
21176 7590 07/31/2019
Additon, Higgins & Pendleton, P.A.
10706 Sikes Place
Suite 350
Charlotte, NC 28277-8202
EXAMINER
LOWREY, DANIEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2019 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):
additon@ahpapatent.com
docket@ahpapatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JO WON LEE, KYUONG SIK CHIN,
JI YEA KIM, SANG KI PARK, and
SEUNG SHIK SHIN
____________

Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Acting Vice Chief Administrative
Patent Judge, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 14, 15, and 18–23. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant is the Applicant, Lotte Advanced Materials Co., Ltd., which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br. 3”) filed Mar. 22, 2018.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification filed Dec. 18, 2013
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated June 15, 2017 (“Final Act.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated July 13, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief dated
Sept. 11, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

2

BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to television housings and
methods of fabricating a television housing (see, e.g., claims 1 and 7).
According to the Specification, blends of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS) resins can be used for exterior materials of
electronic products that require high gloss, high flowability, and high impact
resistance. Spec. 1:15–18. Mixtures of polycarbonate and ABS resin that
are reinforced with glass fiber can exhibit a low quality external appearance
due to whitening from an ejector pin upon release from a mold. Id. at 1:18–
27.
To address this, the Specification discloses a television housing that
includes, among other things, a stainless steel frame and a plastic member
including polycarbonate resin, a rubber-modified aromatic vinyl graft
copolymer resin, and bondable glass fibers. Id. at 2:9–17. The Specification
also discloses a method of making the television housing. Id. at 3:1–5.
According to the Specification, the disclosed television housing can reduce
whitening from an ejector pin upon release from a mold at high temperature.
Id. at 2:5–8.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A television housing having a structure comprising:
a stainless steel (SUS) frame; and
a plastic member adjoining at least one surface of the
stainless steel frame,
wherein the plastic member comprises a base resin
comprising about 70 wt% to about 90 wt% of (A) a
polycarbonate resin comprising a bisphenol-A polycarbonate
resin; and about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% of (B) a rubber-
modified aromatic vinyl graft copolymer resin comprising
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

3

acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) copolymer resin; and
about 10 parts by weight to about 20 parts by weight of (C)
bondable glass fibers with an average length from about 2 mm to
about 5 mm and a diameter from about 10 μm to about 20 μm
based on about 100 parts by weight of the base resin including
the (A) polycarbonate resin and the (B) rubber-modified
aromatic vinyl graft copolymer resin,
wherein the plastic member has a tensile strength from
about 70 MPa to about 130 MPa at about 23°C,
wherein the bondable glass fibers are coated with a resin
comprising epoxy resin, urethane resin, silane resin or a
combination thereof, and
wherein the plastic member has 0 to 1 whitening marks
after the plastic member is released by 10 ejector pins at 70°C.

Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App’x.).

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description
requirement;
II. Claims 1, 5, 6, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishizawa3 in view of Fujimoto4
and Maekawa;5
III. Claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto and

3 Nishizawa et al., US 2009/0091681 A1, published Apr. 9, 2009
(“Nishizawa”).
4 Fujimoto et al., US 2010/0273922 A1, published Oct. 28, 2010
(“Fujimoto”).
5 Maekawa, US 2007/0142571 A1, published June 21, 2007 (“Maekawa”).
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

4

Maekawa and further in view of Hirota;6
IV. Claims 7, 9, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto,
Hirota, and Maekawa;
V. Claims 14 and 15 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishizawa in view Fujimoto and
Maekawa, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Ogoe7 and Asthana;8 and
VI. Claims 18 and 19 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto,
Hirota, and Maekawa, as applied to claim 7, and further
in view of Ogoe and Asthana.

DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner finds the Specification does not support the claim
recitation “mixture of a polycarbonate resin having a melt flow index of
about 16 to about 50 g/10 min and a polycarbonate resin having a melt flow
index of about 51 to about 120 g/10 min.” Final Act. 2–3. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the portion of the Specification Appellant cites supports a
mixture of two polycarbonates having different melt indexes and a specific

6 Hirota et al., US 2004/0180150 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004 (“Hirota”).
7 Ogoe et al., US 6,380,303 B1, issued Apr. 30, 2002 (“Ogoe”).
8 Asthana et al., US 2007/0045893 A1, published Mar. 1, 2007 (“Asthana”).
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

5

mixture of three polycarbonates having specific melt indexes, but does not
support the claimed mixture, which includes two polycarbonates having the
recited melt indexes in any amount. Id. at 3; Ans. 3.
Appellant asserts page 6, lines 10–19, of the Specification discusses
embodiments, including a mixture of two polycarbonates having different
melt indexes, and discuses an exemplary mixture including polycarbonate
resins with the ranges of melt indexes recited in claims 15 and 19. Appeal
Br. 14–15. Appellant further argues that page 18, line 20, to page 19, line 6,
discusses an example including two polycarbonate resins with different melt
indexes and, therefore, Appellant was in possession of the inventions of
claims 15 and 19 at the time the application was filed. Id. at 15–16; Reply
Br. 1–2.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. The test for sufficiency of a
written description is whether the disclosure “clearly allow[s] persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is
claimed.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The disclosure must “reasonably convey[ ] to
those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1351. Possession means
“possession as shown in the disclosure” and “requires an objective inquiry
into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of
ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
The Specification discloses an embodiment of a polycarbonate resin
including at least two polycarbonates having different melt indexes. Spec.
6:12–13. Thus, the mixture’s two polycarbonates may be present in any
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

6

amount. Although that embodiment does not disclose the specific melt
indexes recited in claims 15 and 19, the Specification discloses an
exemplary mixture including three polycarbonates in specific amounts,
wherein two of the polycarbonates have the melt indexes recited in claims
15 and 19. As a result, the Specification reasonably conveys that Appellant
was in possession of the claimed inventions at the time it filed the
application. To the extent the Examiner finds a lack of explicit support for a
mixture having two polycarbonates in any amount and having the claimed
melt indexes, satisfying the written description requirement does not
necessitate describing the exact subject matter claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath,
935 F.2d at 1563; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751 (CCPA 1972)
(stating “the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., ‘in the same words’]
to be sufficient”).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failure to comply with the written
description requirement.

Rejection II
Claims 1, 5, 6, 20, and 21 are rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto and Maekawa.
The Examiner finds Nishizawa discloses a television including a
stainless steel frame and mold frame made of a polycarbonate resin member,
but does not disclose the particular base resin recited in claim 1. Final Act.
3–4. The Examiner finds Fujimoto discloses a reinforced thermoplastic
resin including, among other things, a polycarbonate resin, an aromatic
alkenyl compound grafted to a rubber, and an inorganic filler that can be a
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

7

glass fiber. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Fujimoto discloses that the glass
fiber may be coated with silane, polyurethane resin, or epoxy resin and that
the resin may be used for television housings. Id. The Examiner concludes
it would have been obvious to modify Nishizawa to use Fujimoto’s resin
because Fujimoto teaches that the resin has excellent moldability,
processability, mechanical strength, and drop impact resistance. Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds Nishizawa, as modified in view of Fujimoto, does
not disclose the claimed glass fiber size. Id. The Examiner finds Maekawa
discloses a thermoplastic resin composition for molding parts that includes
glass fibers having a length of 50 to 10,000 microns and a diameter of 5 to
30 microns. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify Nishizawa, as modified in view of Fujimoto, to use Maekawa’s glass
fibers to provide the high mechanical properties Maekawa discloses. Id.
With regard to the claimed tensile strength and whitening marks properties,
the Examiner determines the television housing the applied references
suggest is substantially identical to that claimed and, therefore, would have
possessed these properties. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant contends that the examiner erred in finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of
Nishizawa and Fujimoto. Specifically, Appellant argues that Nishizawa and
Fujimoto are directed to different problems and different solutions for
products that differ in structure and function (i.e., addressing problems with
curved surfaces of LCD displays versus poor drop impact resistance for
molded reinforced thermoplastic resin compositions, respectively). Appeal
Br. 17–20. Appellant acknowledges the advantages Fujimoto discloses as to
its resins (id. at 18–19), but contends that “[t]he Examiner must do more to
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

8

show a motivation or reason to combine” than identify similarities such as
Nishizawa and Fujimoto generally referencing the same technology field,
i.e., televisions (id. at 19).
The test for obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art,
taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). With regard to a rationale
supporting a conclusion of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rationale for combining the references, particularly in light of the advantages
associated with Fujimoto’s resin, i.e., excellent moldability, processability,
mechanical strength, and drop impact resistance. Indeed, the Examiner has
articulated reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto and Maekawa and the applied references
support this reasoning. Final Act. 5 (citing Fujimoto ¶ 15; Maekawa ¶ 59).
Appellant contends that even if one were to make the proposed
combination, the result would not be the same as claimed because Nishizawa
and Fujimoto do not disclose the claimed tensile strength or number of
whitening marks. Appeal Br. 20–21. Appellant argues the proposed
combination would not have all of the required elements because Fujimoto
prefers carbon fibers, Fujimoto’s exemplary compositions all use carbon
fiber as the inorganic filler, Fujimoto “includes various laundry lists of
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

9

possible graft copolymers,” and “none of the cited documents specifically
teach a composition including all of the recited elements and having the
recited properties.” Id. at 21–22; Reply Br. 2.
In addition, Appellant argues unexpected results for the claimed
invention, citing data presented in a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
filed September 7, 2016 (“2016 Declaration”), and in a Declaration under
37 C.F.R. § 1.132 filed March 9, 2017 (“2017 Declaration”) (collectively,
“Appellant’s Declarations”). Appeal Br. 22–29; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant
also argues these results are evidence that Nishizawa’s plastic member, as
modified in view of Fujimoto, would not inherently possess the claimed
tensile strength and number of whitening marks. Appeal Br. 26; Reply Br.
2–3.
These arguments are also unpersuasive. With respect to the argument
that none of the applied references discloses the claimed tensile strength or
number of whitening marks, the Federal Circuit has stated: “the statement
that a prima facie obviousness rejection is not supported if no reference
shows or suggests the newly-discovered properties and results of a claimed
structure is not the law.” In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(en banc). Therefore, the fact that the applied references do not disclose the
claimed tensile strength and number of whitening marks is not, by itself,
sufficient to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
We, therefore, consider whether the record supports the Examiner’s
finding that the applied references suggest a plastic member that would
possess the claimed tensile strength and number of whitening marks.
Fujimoto discloses a reinforced thermoplastic resin composition that
includes, among other things, an aromatic alkenyl compound monomer unit
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

10

(e.g., styrene) and a vinyl cyanide compound monomer unit (e.g.,
acrylonitrile) grafted to a rubber polymer (e.g., butadiene rubber, styrene-
butadiene rubber, or acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber), a matrix polymer
including a polycarbonate resin, and an inorganic filler. Fujimoto ¶¶ 16–18,
29, 41, 42, 47. Fujimoto discloses that the inorganic filler can be glass
fibers, which may be coated, and specifically discloses that glass fibers may
be coated with a polyurethane resin or an epoxy resin. Id. ¶¶ 72–75.
Therefore, Fujimoto suggests a plastic member having the composition
recited in claim 1 except for the claimed length and diameter of the glass
fibers.
To determine whether a difference in glass fiber length and diameter
would significantly affect the claimed properties, we turn to Appellant’s
Declarations. Appellants explain that the 2016 Declaration includes three
inventive examples from Appellant’s Specification, a Comparative Example
1 including glass fibers without a coating, and a Comparative Example 2
including carbon fibers like Fujimoto’s examples. App. Br. 23–24. As
noted above, however, Fujimoto also discloses a composition including
coated glass fibers. In other words, Appellant’s Comparative Examples––of
compositions including uncoated glass fibers and carbon fibers––do not
make a proper comparison with the prior art compositions Fujimoto
discloses.
As a result, the asserted results for compositions including uncoated
glass fibers or carbon fibers are insufficient to show that Fujimoto’s
composition, or Nishizawa’s mold frame as modified in view of Fujimoto,
would not possess the claimed tensile strength and number of whitening
marks.
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

11

Nor does Appellant direct us to evidence or persuasive technical
reasoning that the claimed glass fiber size was critical for producing the
claimed tensile strength and number of whitening marks. Indeed, the
unexpected results data Appellant cites (and we discuss in detail below)
varied the kind of fiber (i.e., glass versus carbon) and varied whether the
fiber was coated or not, without altering the size of glass fibers. Appeal Br.
25. Given the similarities between the claimed plastic member and the
composition Fujimoto discloses, together with the lack of evidence
demonstrating Fujimoto’s composition would not possess the claimed tensile
strength and number of whitening marks, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that the combination would possess the
claimed properties. Final Act. 5–6.
We also weigh Appellant’s evidence of unexpected results submitted
in the 2016 and 2017 Declarations as evidence of unexpected results.
“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the
results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior
art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As
discussed above, Appellant argues Fujimoto prefers carbon fibers and all of
Fujimoto’s examples use carbon fibers. These arguments are unpersuasive
because “the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not
controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered.” Merck & Co., 874 F.2d at 807, quoting
In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). Although Fujimoto
discloses that “carbon fibers are preferred,” Fujimoto also discloses that the
inorganic filler can be glass fibers, discloses that the inorganic filler can be
coated, and discloses specific coatings for glass fibers that are recited in
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

12

claim 1. Fujimoto ¶¶ 72–75. Therefore, Appellant’s results do not properly
compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, which appears to be
Fujimoto.
Appellant submitted the 2017 Declaration to provide additional
inventive examples (i.e., Supplemental Examples 1–6) allegedly showing
unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims. Appeal Br. 27–
29. However, the 2017 Declaration did not include any comparative
examples demonstrating the properties of Fujimoto’s composition. Thus, the
2017 Declaration also did not make a comparison with the closest prior art.
In addition, the Examiner finds Appellant’s results in the 2016
Declaration and 2017 Declaration are not commensurate in scope with the
claims and that one cannot establish a trend from the asserted results.
Ans. 7–8. A showing of unexpected results generally must be
commensurate in scope with a claimed range. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339,
1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he record does not show that the improved
performance would result if the weight-percentages were varied within the
claimed ranges. Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris
needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range.”).
Examples 1–3 of the 2016 Declaration all contain the same polycarbonate
and copolymer resin compositions, glass fiber content, and glass fiber size.
Appeal Br. 25. Supplemental Examples 1–6 of the 2017 Declaration use the
same polycarbonate and copolymer resin compositions as one another,
which differ from the polycarbonate composition and copolymer resin
composition used for Examples 1–3. However, the compositions for
Examples 1–3 and the compositions for Supplemental Examples 1–6 provide
only two data points for polycarbonate compositions and copolymer
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

13

compositions within the ranges of polycarbonate composition and the
copolymer composition encompassed by claim 1. Furthermore, only one
diameter and length of glass fibers is used for all of the inventive examples
even though claim 1 recites ranges for each of these parameters. Appeal
Br. 25, 28. These deficiencies support the Examiner’s findings that the
asserted results are not commensurate in scope with the claims and that one
cannot determine a trend from the results.
Appellant’s argument that Fujimoto discloses “various laundry lists of
possible graft copolymers” is also unpersuasive. In a determination of
obviousness, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have
reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co v.
Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art]
patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any
particular formulation less obvious.”).
Having weighed all of the evidence before us, including Appellant’s
Declarations and the disclosures of the applied references, a preponderance
of the evidence supports the conclusion that the invention of claim 1 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant does not argue claims 5, 6, 20, and 21 separately from
claim 1. Appeal Br. 17–29.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 20, and 21 over
Nishizawa, Fujimoto, and Maekawa.

Rejection III
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

14

§ 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto and Maekawa and further in
view of Hirota.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the plastic
member is molded by a steam molding process.” Appeal Br. 41 (Claims
App’x.). Claim 3 depends from claim 2. Id. at 42 (Claims App’x.).
The Examiner finds the combination of Nishizawa, Fujimoto, and
Maekawa does not disclose a steam molding process. Final Act. 7.
However, the Examiner finds that claim 2 recites a product-by-process
limitation. Id.9 Alternatively, the Examiner finds Hirota discloses a resin
forming method using steam that is suitable for television frames. Id. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the combination
of Nishizawa, Fujimoto, and Maekawa to use Hirota’s steam molding
process to gain the benefits of simplified production and spot prevention. Id.
Appellant contends there would have been no reason to modify the
combination of Nishizawa, Fujimoto, and Maekawa in view of Hirota
because Hirota is directed to making an ornamental exterior component with
a lustrous appearance, whereas Nishizawa’s mold frame 35 is an internal
component that is not decorative or ornamental. Appeal Br. 30–33; Reply
Br. 4–5. Appellant also argues the Examiner’s rationale stems from
advantages of Hirota’s process over prior coating processes to provide a
lustrous appearance, and Hirota does not address or recognize the problem
of whitening marks during a molding process. Appeal Br. 32–33; Reply Br.

9 Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s product-by-process
finding (e.g., by arguing the claimed invention would result in a different
structure). Nevertheless, we address Appellant’s arguments against the
Examiner’s alternative position of obviousness over the combination of
Nishzawa, Fujimoto, Maekawa, and Hirota.
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

15

4–5.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Although Hirota is directed
to producing a decorative plastic product for the exterior panel and frame for
televisions (Hirota ¶¶ 2, 15), Hirota nonetheless demonstrates that a steam
molding process is suitable for molding television frames (id. ¶¶ 15, 30). As
the Examiner correctly finds (Final Act. 3), Nishizawa discloses that its
device can be used in a television. Nishizawa ¶ 3. Fujimoto also discloses
that its resin composition can be used for television housings and that the
composition can be molded. Fujimoto ¶¶ 117–118. Maekawa discloses its
resin composition can be used for electric/electronic materials and can be
molded. Maekawa ¶ 1. Therefore, the substitution of Hirota’s steam
molding process for the molding process used in Nishizawa, as modified in
view of Fujimoto and Maekawa, would have been the substitution of one
known process for another that would have yielded no more than a
predictable result (i.e., molding a component for a television). KSR, 550
U.S. at 416.
For these reasons, and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 3 over Nishizawa,
Fujimoto, Maekawa, and Hirota.

Rejection IV
Claims 7, 9, 22, and 23 are rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto, Hirota, and
Maekawa.
Independent claim 7 recites a method of fabricating a television
housing that includes preparing a plastic member similar to that recited in
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

16

claim 1 via a steam molding process (similar to claim 2). Appeal Br. 43
(Claims App’x.).
Appellant argues claims 7, 9, 22, and 23 are patentable over
Nishizawa, Fujimoto, Hirota, and Maekawa for the same reasons discussed
above with regard to the rejection of claim 1 and the rejection of claim 2.
Appeal Br. 34–35. For the reasons discussed above with regard to the
rejections of claims 1 and 2, Appellant’s arguments do not identify a
reversible error. Therefore we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 7, 9,
22, and 23 over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto, Hirota, and Maekawa.

Rejections V and VI
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Nishizawa in view Fujimoto and Maekawa and further in view
of Ogoe and Asthana.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Nishizawa in view of Fujimoto, Hirota, and Maekawa and
further in view of Ogoe and Asthana.
For these rejections, Appellant cites the arguments discussed above
for the rejections of independent claims 1 and 7. Appeal Br. 36. As
discussed above, Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the
rejections of claims 1 and 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejections of claims 14, 15, 18, and 19.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we:
A. reverse the § 112, ¶ 1, rejection of claims 15 and 19; and
Appeal 2018-008861
Application 14/132,325

17

B. affirm the § 103(a) rejections of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 14, 15, and
18–23.

DECISION
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