Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 20202020005617 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020) 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. 15/108,913 06/29/2016 Masanori Ueno 1451202.202US9 1001 21874 7590 11/03/2020 LOCKE LORD LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 EXAMINER DILLON, DANIEL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1783 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/03/2020 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): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASANORI UENO, and CHIKA FUNABIKI Appeal 2020-005617 Application 15/108,913 Technology Center 1700 Before: BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, AND BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1 and 3–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005617 Application 15/108,913 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A decorative sheet, comprising a base sheet formed of a polyester resin or a polyolefin resin; and an ornamental layer and a surface-protecting layer provided on the base sheet in this order, and the decorative sheet further comprises a resin layer between the base sheet and the surface-protecting layer; the decorative sheet having a total thickness of 70 to 135 μm, the decorative sheet having recesses, the maximum depth of each recess being 15 to 100% based on the total thickness and not less than 15 μm, the ratio of a tensile elastic modulus at 120 °C to a tensile elastic modulus at 20 °C being 1:12 to 1:160, and the ratio of a maximum point load at 120 °C to a maximum point load at 20 °C upon 30-mm stretching being 1:1.7 to 1:30, wherein the decorative sheet has a combination of the recesses that end with different max depths in which the max depths are formed in various layers, including max depths are formed in the resin layer, the ornamental layer, and the base layer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Matsukawa et al. US 2011/0045284 A1 Feb. 24, 2011 (“Matsukawa”) Iizuka et al. US 2011/0052880 A1 Mar. 3, 2011 (“Iizuka”) Segaert US 2011/0117325 A1 May 19, 2011 Appeal 2020-005617 Application 15/108,913 3 THE REJECTION Claims 1 and 3–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa in view of Iizuka and Segaert. OPINION Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Accordingly, the claims subject to the stated ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm, with the following emphasis. We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection as set forth on pages 4–8 of the Answer and on pages 2–7 of the Final Office Action. On pages 4–8 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant submits that the combination of Matsukawa, Iizuka, and Segaert fails to teach each of the limitations of independent claim 1, particularly the limitation of “wherein the decorative sheet has a combination of recesses that end with different max depths in which the max depths are formed in various layers, including max depths are formed in the resin layer, the ornamental layer, and the base layer.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant points to the Examiner’s rejection where the Examiner states that Matsukawa is silent with respect to this feature and the rejection turns to Segaert. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant submits that Appeal 2020-005617 Application 15/108,913 4 Segaert is silent with respect to a combination of recesses with max depths extending into different layers because Segaert teaches a chrome layer having a microstructure including recesses having different heights or depths and the microstructure being limited to the chrome layer, and not extending into other layers as identified by paragraphs [0028] and [0055] of Segaert. Appeal Br. 6. We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned line of argument for the reasons provided by the Examiner on pages 9–10 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner finds that Segaert’s microstructure teachings are all preferred embodiments such that it appears as though each of the descriptions identified by Appellant having the microstructure in the uppermost layer are preferred (see p. 3, paragraph [0028], p. 5, paragraphs [0055]–[0056] of Segaert). The Examiner refers to MPEP 2123 II which states that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. Ans. 9. We agree. The Examiner further states that Segaert generally teaches providing a plurality of zones having recesses with differing depth, orientation and density in order to achieve special effects, such as gloss, (which was noted in the statement of the rejection) as the motivation to vary the depths of the recesses of Iizuka formed in the decorative sheets of Matsukawa. Ans. 9. The Examiner explains that the rejection relies upon Matsukawa for teaching the respective layers of claim 1, and Iizuka teaches the formation of the recesses, or a concave pattern with depths ranging from 20 to 80 microns in order to provide an air of luxuriousness. The Examiner states that Iizuka fails to teach the concave pattern having recesses with differing max depths, Appeal 2020-005617 Application 15/108,913 5 to which the rejection turns to Segaert which teaches varying the depths of the recesses in order to achieve the gloss effect. Ans. 9. In view of the above, the Examiner reiterates the conclusion that it would have been obvious to have formed Matsukawa’s sheets, with Iizuka’s concave pattern, which has differing max depths, to achieve a glossiness as taught by Segaert. The Examiner also states that in order to teach the limitation of the recesses extending into different layers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the differing max depths of Iizuka’s pattern would have resulted in recesses having depths of 20 microns (“into the resin layer”), depths of 80 microns (“into the base layer”), and depths in between (“into the printing layer”), which is described in the stated rejection (Final Act. 5). Ans. 10. The Examiner states that the portions of Segaert cited by the Appellant are all preferred embodiments which are not mentioned in the statement of the rejection of claim 1, whereas the rejection relies on Segaert’s teaching of providing varying depths of recesses in order to achieve a desired glossiness. Ans. 10. We agree. On pages 9–10 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that Segaert further teaches that the microstructure is relatively shallow such that little to no dirt can adhere, and one of ordinary skill would not have a recess extending into the base layer in order to prevent dirt from adhering. We agree with the Examiner’s stated reply that the combination is proper as each of the cited references of Matsukawa, Iizuka, and Segaert teaches laminate panels or sheets which are used for decoration (Matsukawa, Abstract; Iizuka, p. 1, paragraph [0001]; Segaert, p. 1, paragraphs [0002], [0005]). Ans. 10. Therein, the Examiner also states that each of the references teaches layers and recesses on the scale of microns such that each Appeal 2020-005617 Application 15/108,913 6 of the layers of Matsukawa are described on the scale of microns. Ans. 10. The Examiner also states that Iizuka’s recesses are on the scale of microns, particularly having depths of 20 to 80 microns, and Segaert’s microstructures preferably have a difference in heights of 50 microns or less (Segaert, p. 1, paragraph [0012]). Ans. 10. The Examiner reiterates that therefore the combination of Matuskawa, Iizuka, and Segaert is proper as there is significant overlap between the thickness/depths of the recesses. We agree. In view of the above, we affirm the rejection. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–20 1, 3–20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation