Stefan Landolt et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 29, 201914376159 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/376,159 08/01/2014 Stefan Landolt D-44633-01 1193 28236 7590 08/29/2019 Sealed Air Corporation Patent Department 2415 Cascade Pointe Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28208 EXAMINER STINSON, CHELSEA E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2019 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): patents@sealedair.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEFAN LANDOLT and ANDRE STEINER ____________________ Appeal 2018-008324 Application 14/376,159 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Stefan Landolt and Andre Steiner (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6– 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Cryovac, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-008324 Application 14/376,159 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An apparatus for heat shrinking a package, comprising: a chamber configured such that a package on a surface of the apparatus may be heat shrunk via a heating fluid in the chamber; and a preheat container configured to supply a preheated liquid to a heat tank from which the heating fluid is supplied to the chamber; wherein the preheat container is above said surface such that liquid in the preheat container can be preheated by heat from the chamber; and wherein the preheat container is positioned on an upper surface of the chamber and directly above the chamber such that the preheated liquid is preheated above the chamber by heat rising upward in the chamber. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 10–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ehrmann (US 2009/0071107 A1, published Mar. 19, 2009). II. Claims 7–9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ehrmann and Giraudi (US 3,872,644, issued Mar. 25, 1975). DISCUSSION Independent claims 1 and 15 both recite, in pertinent part, that “the preheat container is positioned on an upper surface of the chamber and directly above the chamber such that the preheated liquid is preheated above the chamber by heat rising upward in the chamber.” Appeal Br. 22, 24 Appeal 2018-008324 Application 14/376,159 3 (Claims App.). As illustrated in the drawing in the present application, Appellants’ preheat container 20 comprises a tray, or similar structure, that is configured to receive and hold, or contain, liquid, directly above chamber 10, where package 2 is heat-shrunk. See Spec. 7:8; Fig. Consequently, excess heat in chamber 10, which may be in the form of water vapor, for example, “can rise upwards towards the preheat container 20 so as to preheat liquid inside the preheat container 20.” Id. 6:27–29. Optionally, the preheat container may comprise “an opening 22 through which the preheated liquid 21 can overflow towards the heat tank 30.” Id at 14:9–10; see id. at 4:1–2. The Examiner finds that the embodiment of Figure 1 of Ehrmann discloses an apparatus and method substantially as recited in claims 1 and 15, including, in pertinent part, a “preheat container,” which the Examiner reads on the combined structure of extractor hood 8 and recirculation line 9 (including perforated end piece 14). Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Ehrmann’s Figure 1 embodiment discloses an area configured such that a package on a surface may be heat shrunk via a heating fluid, but does not expressly disclose heat shrinking the package “in a chamber, and that the preheat container is positioned on an upper surface of the chamber.” Id. (pointing to the area of arrows B); see Ehrmann ¶¶ 59–60 (disclosing that arrows B denote water vapor escaping from heated water 4 sprayed on packages to be heat-shrunk). The Examiner finds that the Figure 5 embodiment of Ehrmann teaches forming a chamber (defined by lid 38 and separating curtains 39, 40, 41, and 42) in which to heat shrink the package and positioning the preheat chamber on an upper surface (lid 38) of the chamber. Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the heat Appeal 2018-008324 Application 14/376,159 4 shrinking area of the apparatus of the embodiment of Figure 1 of Ehrmann so the package may be heat shrunk by a heating fluid in a chamber, with the preheat container positioned on an upper surface of the chamber, as depicted in the Figure 5 embodiment of Ehrmann, “in order to reduce the quantity of water vapor that emerges from the working space and therefore improve efficiency of the apparatus.” Id.; see Ehrmann ¶ 70 (explaining that partitioning off working region 37 by lid 38 and separating curtains 39, 40, 41, and 42 “significantly reduces the quantity of water vapor which emerges from the working space”). Even assuming that Ehrmann’s extractor hood 8 and recirculation line 9 can reasonably be considered to be a preheat container positioned on an upper surface of the chamber and directly above the chamber, as recited in claims 1 and 15, Appellants argue, persuasively, that this “preheat container” structure is not positioned “such that preheated liquid is preheated above the chamber by heat rising upward in the chamber,” as also recited in claims 1 and 15. See Appeal Br. 11–12; id. at 22, 24 (Claims. App.). As Appellants point out, water vapor captured by hood 8 and directed into recirculation line 9 of Ehrmann escapes from heating water 4, which has already been heated while in trough 3. See id. at 11. Thus, the water vapor is not preheated above the chamber by heat rising upward in the chamber. Ehrmann discloses fresh water sprayed into recirculation line 9 by spray head 13 and being preheated by water vapor passing through recirculation line 9, but Ehrmann does not teach or suggest introducing fresh water into recirculation line 9 at a location above the chamber such that it is preheated above the chamber by heat rising upward in the chamber, as called for in claims 1 and 15. See Ehrmann ¶ 56. Appeal 2018-008324 Application 14/376,159 5 For the above reasons, the Examiner does not establish that the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 15 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 15, or claims 4, 6, and 10–14, which depend from claim 1, as unpatentable over Ehrmann. The aforementioned deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 15 also pervades the rejection of claims 7–9, which depend from claim 1, as well as claim 16, which depends from claim 15, as unpatentable over Ehrmann and Giraudi. The Examiner’s application of Giraudi does not cure this underlying defect in the rejection. See Final Act. 8–9. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 15, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 7–9 and 16 as unpatentable over Ehrmann and Giraudi. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6–16 is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation