Ex parte Van Vliet
| Decision Date | 28 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | Application 09/352,Appeal 2004-1950,612 |
| Parties | Ex parte ARIE HENDRIK FRANS VAN VLIET and SEBASTIAN MARTINUS PETERS |
| Court | Patent Trial and Appeal Board |
This Opinion is Not binding Precedent of the Board.
HEARD December 8, 2004
Before GARRIS, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
DECISION ON APPEAL
WARREN, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE.
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting claims 16 through 18 and refusing to allow claims 1 through 7, 13 through 15 and 19 through 23 as amended subsequent to the final rejection. Claims 9 through 12 are also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).[1]
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 16 illustrate appellants' invention of a grid of drawn polymeric strips comprising at least two spatially separated bonding points or lines in at least one zone of overlap, and are representative of the claims on appeal:
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Foglia et al. (Foglia)
3, 560, 291
Feb, 2, 1971
Romanek
4, 265, 954
May 5, 1981
Kobiella
4, 483, 438
Nov. 20, 1984
Hoechst (published FR Patent Application, France)
1, 506, 163
Dec. 15, 1967
Saito (Canadian Patent)
1206522
Van Vliet et al. (Van Vliet) (published Canadian Patent Application)
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 5, 7 and 13 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Vliet in view of Kobiella, Romanek and Saito (answer, pages 5-9), and appealed claims 6 and 19 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Vliet in view of Kobiella, Romanek and Saito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoechst and Foglia (answer, pages 9-11).
Appellants group the appealed claims into four groups (brief, page 9). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1, 4, 6 and 16 as representative of the groupings of appealed claims and the two grounds of rejection. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003); see also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) .
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants, we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
OpinionWe have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported positions advanced by the examiner in the answer that prima facie, the claimed grids encompassed by appealed claims 1, 4, 6 and 16 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Van Vliet and Kobiella and of Van Vliet, Kobiella and Foglia[2] to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Thus, we again consider the record as a whole with respect to these grounds of rejection in light of appellants' rebuttal arguments in the brief and reply brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 1472, 223 U.S.P.Q. 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The difference between the claimed grids and the grids disclosed by Van Vliet is described by appellants as "Van Vliet fails to teach or suggest a zone of overlap in a grid with two intersecting strips having at least two spatially separated bonding points or lines" (brief, page 16). In this respect, appellants find that Van Vliet teaches that bonding occurs in the entire region of overlap (id. pages 15-16; reply brief, page 2). Appellants submit, with respect to appealed claims 15 and 16, that although Kobiella teaches spatially separated bonding, the reference does not bridge the gap between the claimed invention and Van Vliet because it is directed to a single strap that is subjected to tensile loads only in the longitudinal direction and not in the longitudinal and transverse directions as in the claimed grids and those of Van Vliet, and thus, the bonded strap of Kobiella does not have the problem of splitting in the transverse direction under load which can rupture the strap, citing their specification at page 2, ll. 17-30 for support (brief, page 17). Appellants allege that Kobiella discloses at col. 6, ll. 8-11, that the bonding area of the single strap has "only 75% of the strength" of the strap, thus teaching away from using the bonding of the reference in grids "to prevent early rupture," citing their specification at page 6, ll. 22-27, "where it is pointed out that the prior art bonding of the entire zone of overlap (such as [the conventional prior art weld of Van Vliet in] Fig. 2 . . .), [sic] exhibits only a 15% loss in strength retention" (brief, page 17). Thus, appellants argue that "since entire bonding, such as in Van Vliet, has improved strength from that taught to be achievable by Kobiella, one would have been led against the combination" (id.). Appellants contend with respect to appealed claim 4 that the references do not teach the specified width of the bonding points or lines.
Appellants further submit that the references do not teach that "the grid has a strength about equal to the higher tensile strength in the lengthwise direction of the strips" as specified in appealed 16, alleging that appellants "have found that the strength of grids that are loaded in a direction perpendicular to three or more spatially separated and parallel bonding lines can be virtually equal to the sum of the strips strength in that direction," citing page 3, lines 3-12, of their specification (brief, page 18). Appellants contend that "Kobiella teaches an inferior strength of its bonding and teaches against such spatial separation" (id., page 19). Appellants further contend that a comparison of a grid of Van Vliet's grid with a grid of the claimed invention as set forth at specification, page 6, ll. 8-27, and shown in a table at brief, page 19, would show that the grid of Van Vliet suffers a large strength loss of about 15% and "exhibits the problem of early rupture," which problem is solved by appellants in the grids of appealed claims 1 and 16. (brief, page 19).
Appellants submit with respect to appealed claim 6 that Foglia does not teach the use of lasers to form spatially separated bonding points or lines (id., page 20).
The examiner responds that appellants' arguments with respect to strap rupture are unsupported by evidence, and appellants' use of spatially separated bonding to address strap rupture is only a different reason to use such bonding than that of improving tensile strength taught by Kobiella (answer, page 12). The examiner further points out that "Kobiella discloses at least 75% (strap strength)" which reads on "75% and higher, with no upper limit provided," and finds that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have readily expected from Kobiella's general teaching as provided in Col. 2, lines 21-46, the strength across a zone of overlap would increase from its original strength by employing spatially separated bonding lines as such maintains orientation within the strips at the zone of overlap" (id., pages 12-13). The examiner further finds that "[t]he exact extent of the strip strength in the welding zone would have been influenced by a variety of factors, including number of bonding lines, the spacing of bonding lines, and the polymeric material of the strip, all of which one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated as contributing factors" (id., page 13). Thus, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of Kobiella to employ the bonding thereof in the welds of Van Vliet in the reasonable expectation that "the orientation of the strips would be maintained and in turn the strength of the strips in the weld zone would increase" (id.).
The examiner points out with respect to appealed claim 4 that Kobiella teaches at col. 4, ll. 13-27, that the bond lines can be 2.5 mm in width (id., page 14). With respect to the strength limitation of appealed claim 16, the examiner finds that Van Vliet forms mats with strips drawn to orient the molecules in the longitudinal direction and thus have high tensile strength in that direction, pointing out that the reference would have suggested at page 4, ll. 12-15 "that the mesh mats have almost the same strength as the sum of the strengths of the strips located in one direction" (id.). The examiner further finds that in Kobiella, the spatially separated bonding lines act to maintain the strength of the strip at the zone of overlap. With respect to appealed claim 6, the examiner points out that Foglia suggests that a "laser is a known...
To continue reading
Request your trial