SIEGL, Robert

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

14084057 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2020)

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.
14/084,057 11/19/2013 Robert SIEGL 0076117-000037 4041
21839 7590 01/14/2020
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ROBERT SIEGL
__________

Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. Final Act. 1 (Office Action
Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons
explained below, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “ALPLA
WERKE ALWIN LEHNER GMBH & CO. KG.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a plastic container with a cut
neck, produced in a stretch blow-molding method.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus
claim 1 and method claim 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A plastic container, comprising:
a body formed from a plastic preform, wherein the
preform is formed through an injection molding process and is
configured to establish a shape of the plastic container through
stretch-blow molding;
a neck produced from the plastic preform via a mold cavity
of a blow-mold tool of a stretch blow-molding device, with a
stretch mandrel used to form the shape of the plastic container;
and
a cut periphery of the neck, beneath which is an encircling,
essentially radially tapered portion that encircles an outside wall
of the plastic container and, on an opposing inside wall, forms a
substantially radially encircling step, which step is configured for
interaction with a sealing cone, which projects from a closure
part, when mounted on the cut periphery of the plastic container,
wherein the neck has a beveled edge at the cut periphery
and the neck extends substantially in a vertical direction along an
axial distance between the cut periphery and the encircling
portion.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Sandor et al. US 6,241,111 B1 June 5, 2001
Witz et al. US 2012/0308841 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Hutchinson et al. US 8,551,589 B2 Oct. 8, 2013

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–12, 16, and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sandor. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057

3
Claims 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sandor and Hutchinson. Final Act. 4.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sandor and Witz. Final Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–12, 16, and 18–21
as unpatentable over Sandor
Independent claim 1 recites, “the neck has a beveled edge at the cut
periphery.” The Examiner finds that Sandor discloses a plastic container
comprising a neck 11 and a cut periphery (edge 96g) of the neck shown in
Figure 15. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner acknowledges that the
embodiment of Figure 15 does not disclose that the neck has a beveled edge
at its periphery. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds that Sandor
discloses, in the alternate embodiment of Figure 17, a neck having a beveled
edge at the periphery that is “adjacent the lead line of 121 in figure 17.”
Final Act. 3. Thereafter, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify the plastic container of the embodiment of Figure 15 of
Sandor with a beveled edge from the embodiment of Figure 17 “in order to
better fit within the channel of the lid.” Final Act. 3. Hence, in the
Examiner’s proposed combination, the neck would have a bevel prior to
insertion “within the channel of the lid.” Final Act. 3.
Addressing Figure 17 of Sandor, Appellant contends, “Sandor is silent
with regard to the outline of the upper lip 121 having a beveled edge.”
Appeal Br. 9. “Rather, from the description of Fig. 17 one of ordinary skill
would have understood that the upper lip 121 is bounded by straight vertical
surfaces.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057

4
To aid our endeavor, we replicate Figure 17 of Sandor below.

“FIG. 17 of Sandor is a fragmentary section view of a neck [11h] formed in
accordance with FIG. 16 and a cap [41h] seated thereon.” Sandor 3:17–18.
This figure depicts neck upper lip 121, adjacent vertical surfaces 122 and
126, cap plug 210, and cap filet 140.
As noted above, claim 1 recites, “the neck has a beveled edge at the
cut periphery.” From such language, and a review of Appellant’s
Specification (see e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 36, 37, 62, 63), we understand there is a
beveled edge at the periphery of the neck.
Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057

5
Sandor states that in the Figure 17 embodiment “the neck 11h formed
in the mold parts [is as] shown in FIG. 16.” Sandor 7:24–26. Appellant thus
contends, “FIG. 16, however, clearly shows that the neck has a straight
vertical outer surface or upward section 122. There is no indication,
whatsoever, of the section 122 having a beveled edge.” Appeal Br. 9.
A review of Figure 17 of Sandor above discloses an interface between
the upper outside corner of neck 11h and fillet 140 of cap 41h. This
interface discloses what appears to be a deformation of neck 11h that is
neither horizontal (see upper lip 121) nor vertical (see surface 126).
However, it is unclear from the Specification of Sandor that the deformation
of neck 11h, to the extent depicted, is a deformation of neck 11h at lip 121,
as Figure 17 supra is interpreted by the Examiner, rather than a deformation
of cap 41h forming a filet due to compression. The Specification of Sandor
discloses that there is compression of filet 140 of cap 41h, which results in
the interface as depicted in Figure 17 supra. In particular, Sandor describes
this interface stating, “[a]n inner projection from the interior of the cap skirt
wall shown in the embodiment of FIG. 17 as filet 140 is provided. The
purpose of filet [140] is to increase the compressive force between the seal
surface 122 and plug 210.” Sandor 7: 42–46. Thus, the apparent
deformation of neck 11h depicted in Figure 17 of Sandor, may be a result of
depicting the compression of filet 140 of cap 41h against neck 11h so as to
form a seal between surfaces 122 and 210. In other words, the Specification
of Sandor does not support the Examiner’s interpretation of Figure 17 so as
to include a beveled edge at the periphery of neck 11h.
In view of such teachings, there is no indication in Sandor that the
neck formed as disclosed in the Figure 16 embodiment contains, in its
Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057

6
uncapped state, any beveled edge, as recited. The Examiner’s interpretation
of Figure 17 as disclosing a beveled edge that is formed when a cap is placed
on the neck (see Ans. 5) appears to read too much into the teachings of
Sandor. Our reviewing court has provided instruction that the Patent Office
“may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis” and as such, “we may not resolve doubts in
favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the
record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner has provided
sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. We reverse the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2–12, 16, and 18–21 depending therefrom, as being obvious over
Sandor.
The rejection of claims 13–15
as obvious over Sandor and Hutchinson
Claims 13–15 depend indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims
App.). The Examiner relies on Hutchinson for disclosing “a bottom using
polypropylene, recycled PET and barrier additives.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner does not rely on Hutchinson in any manner that remedies the
deficiencies of Sandor, as discussed above. Accordingly, for reasons similar
to those already discussed, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13–15.
Appeal 2019-004419
Application 14/084,057

7
The rejection of claims 17 and 22
as obvious over Sandor and Witz
Claim 17 recites “cutting off an excess section . . . to form a beveled
edge” and claim 22 depends from claim 17. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 22 as unpatentable over Sandor
and Witz is based on the same unsupported findings in Sandor as discussed
above with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not rely
on Witz in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of Sandor. Final Act.
5. Accordingly, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 17 and 22.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 16,
18–21
103 Sandor 1–12, 16,
18–21
13–15 103 Sandor, Hutchinson 13–15
17, 22 103 Sandor, Witz 17, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–22

REVERSED