Stefan Landolt et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

14376159 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
14/376,159 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