Ex Parte 7476095 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201290010648 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012) 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. 90/010,648 09/28/2009 7476095 09-304L 6551 34704 7590 09/19/2012 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. 900 CHAPEL STREET SUITE 1201 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 EXAMINER JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3991 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PRIAMUS SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES AG, Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF CASE Piramus System Technologies AG (hereinafter “Appellant”), the real party in interest1 of Patent 7,476,095 B2 (hereinafter the “‘095 patent”), appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 1 See Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed July 22, 2011, (hereinafter “App. Br.”) at 3. Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 2 82 (Final Office Action, mailed January 19, 2011, pages 3-6). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306. We AFFIRM. This reexamination proceeding arose from a third-party request for ex parte reexamination filed by James M. Bagarazzi of the law firm of Dority & Manning, P.A. (Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, filed September 28, 2009). The ‘095 patent relates to an insert in a mold plate of a molding device, of, for example, an injection-molding apparatus. The mold insert has a sensor with a coupling that can be disconnected when the insert is removed and replaced with a new insert (‘095 patent, col. 1, ll. 7-12 and col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 4). Representative claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and reads as follows (with indentations added for clarity): 1. A device for forming an object in a mold comprising a first mold insert and a second mold insert which define a mold cavity, wherein at least one of the first and second mold inserts has a bore which opens to the mold cavity, a sensor in the bore wherein a front surface of the sensor lies in a plane of an inner cavity wall of the at least one mold inserts which defines a portion of the mold cavity, the sensor is connected to a first coupling part located in the at least one mold insert by means of a first line, wherein the first line has a resistance of at least 1012 ohms and the first coupling part is connected to a second coupling part located in a mold plate carrying the at least one insert, and the second coupling part is connected by a second line to a signal evaluation unit, wherein the second line has a resistance of at least 1012 ohms. 2 Original claims 6 and 7 of the ‘095 patent are not subject to this reexamination (App. Br. 5; Ans. 2). Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 3 (Claims App’x, App. Br. 19.) II. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: 1. Claim 1-3 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kistler Type 1700A (Kistler Instrumente AG, “Automatic High-Insulation Coupling, 1700A5, 1700A7” (August 1988)3 (hereinafter “Kistler Type 1700A”)). 2. Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kistler Type 1700A and Frey (WO 02/082023 A1, published October 17, 2002);4 3. Claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Uhlmann (DE 39 39 728 A1, published June 6, 1991)5 and Kistler Type 6169A (Kistler Instrumente AG, “Mold Cavity Pressure Sensor with front: Ø12mm, Type 6169A” (March 2002)6(hereinafter “Kistler Type 6169A”); 3 Although the document lacks a clear indication that the reference to “8.88” refers to the date the document was publically available, Appellant does not appear to contest that Kistler Type 1700A is prior art. 4 A computer-generated English language translation of Frey from the European Patent Office was made of record in this proceeding September 28, 2009. Appellant does not appear to contest that this computer-generated translation is sufficient evidence of the content of the original German language document. 5 A computer-generated English language translation of Uhlmann from the European Patent Office was made of record in this proceeding September 28, 2009. Appellant does not appear to contest that this computer-generated translation is sufficient evidence of the content of the original German language document. 6 Although the document lacks a clear indication that the reference to “03.02” refers to the date the document was publically available, Appellant does not appear to contest that Kistler Type 6169A is prior art. Appeal Reexam Patent 7 4 Uhlman A. IS T mold in of at lea couplin skill in t B. A W of fact a F 2012-0097 ination co ,476,095 B . Claim n, Kistler III. SUES ON he sole iss sert of a m st 1012 ohm g part loca he art ove NALYSI e adopt th ppearing b igure 4 of 60 ntrol 90/0 2 s 4 and 5 Type 6169 UHLMAN APPEAL ue on app olding app s, and a f ted in a m r the comb S e Examin elow for e Uhlmann 10,648 under 35 U A, and Fr N IN VIE eal is: Do aratus inc irst coupli old plate w ination of er’s findin mphasis. is reprodu 4 .S.C §10 ey. W OF KI es the evid luding a se ng part tha ould have Uhlmann gs in the A ced below. 3(a) as bei STLER TY ence supp nsor, a fir t is conne been obv and Kistle nswer and ng unpaten PE 6169A ort a concl st line wit cted to a s ious to one r Type 61 add addit table ove usion that h a resistan econd of ordina 69A? ional findi r a ce ry ngs Appeal Reexam Patent 7 F illustrat sensor 1 T mold in the mol Figure 4 between mold pl which i during a connect the plug A having a T cable, h insert to F 2012-0097 ination co ,476,095 B igure 4 de ing the arr 2 in a mol he Examin sert 5c tha d plate 6a ). We agr a sensor ate 6a. Th s automati mold inse ion betwee 46 is in m ccordingly n insulati he Examin aving a res a connect igure 3 of 60 ntrol 90/0 2 picts a cro angement ding form er finds th t is connec (Ans. 5 an ee with th and contro e plug con cally conn rt change n plug 46 old plate , the Exam on resistan er further istance of or (Ans. 6 page 4 for 10,648 ss-sectiona of a pressu 5c (Uhlm at Figure ted to a se d 11)(citin e Examine l unit via a nection 45 ected to a (Uhlmann to quick c 6a and the iner finds ce of 1012 finds that at least 10 ). Kistler Ty 5 l side view re sensor ann, ¶ [00 4 of Uhlm cond coup g Uhlman r that Uhl “plug con includes quick conn , ¶ [0033]) onnected c coupler 47 that Uhlm Ohms, fro Kistler Ty 12 Ohms, pe 6169A of a mol 11a and a 17], [0032 ann teache ling 47 vi n, ¶ [0021 mann teac nection 4 a plug 46 ected cou . Uhlman oupler 47 is in mol ann fails m sensor pe 6169A connecting is reprodu ding appar reference ], and [003 s a sensor a a plug 46 ], [0032], hes a conn 5” and a li of a mold pler 47 of n also teac can be rev d insert 5c to disclose 12 to plug teaches an a sensor ced below atus metal pres 3]). 12 within disposed [0033] and ection ne through insert 5c, mold plate hes that th ersed (i.e ). a line, 46 (Ans. 6 insulating within a m : sure a in 6a e ., ). old Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 6 Figure 3 depicts a partial cross-sectional view of a molding apparatus, including a sensor disposed in a mold insert, a cable directed through the mold insert to a connector disposed at a mounting plate, and identification label, indicating the sensor’s type and sensitivity (Kistler Type 6169A, p. 2, col. 1 ¶ 3 to col. 2, last ¶ and p. 4, Figure 3 caption). The Examiner concludes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the exchangeable, insulated cable having a resistance of at least 1012 Ω, with a connector within the mold insert as suggested in Uhlmann and as taught by Type 6169A, for the sensor configuration of Uhlmann because Type 6169A clearly teaches the flexibility and efficacy of such an installation that is compatible with injection molding processes. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner clarifies that “only the use of the line is necessary in combination with Uhlmann” and that Kistler Type 6169A teaches “the known and expected use of a connecting line from a sensor located in an insert in instances wherein the sensor itself is not immediately adjacent the connector” (Ans. 11). However, Appellant’s arguments are not germane to and do not adequately address the Examiner’s rationale for rejecting the claims based on Uhlmann and Kistler Type 6169A. Rather, Appellant’s arguments are based on the position that combining the teachings of Uhlmann and Kistler Type 6169A would require that “the entire line and connector (self-locking Fischer connector) of Type 6169A would be incorporated into Uhlmann” (App. Br. 14). Based on this premise, Appellant then argues that the connector of Type 6169A does not arrive at the claimed subject matter because the connectors of Kistler Type 6169A are (a) Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 7 interlocking connectors7 and (b) arranged on the mold and not in the mold insert (App. Br. 15). Appellant presents no convincing evidence or reasoning to support its underlying premise that one of ordinary skill in the art would have necessarily had to substitute both the line and the connector of Kistler Type 6169A into the apparatus of Uhlmann. We cannot agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to apply the concept in Kistler Type 6169A of including a line from a sensor in a mold insert to a connector to the sensor/connector structure of Uhlmann to allow for flexibility in the placement of a sensor of Uhlmann away from the plug 46. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Indeed, Appellant presents no convincing evidence or reasoning that placing the line of Kistler Type 6169A between the plug 46 and sensor 12 taught by Uhlmann would have been beyond the skill of the ordinary artisan or that in combining Kistler Type 6169A and Uhlmann, the skilled artisan would not have arrived at the claimed invention in the manner articulated by the Examiner. Appellant’s emphasis on the connectors of Kistler Type 6169A, without addressing 7 Appellant relies on translated emails obtained from “Fischer, the supplier of the connectors in question” specifying that the connectors described in Kistler Type 1700A and Kistler Type 6169A are no longer sold, but that similarly named connectors are “interlocking connectors” and that “[n]on interlocking connectors have the designation SC . . . and SOV . . . by us” (see App. Br. 12 and 15 and Evidence Appendix). Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 8 the plug 46/coupler 47 of Uhlmann relied upon by the Examiner, is not persuasive that the Examiner’s proposed combination is in error. For the same reason, Appellant’s arguments presented with respect to the non-interlocking connector of claim 2 (App. Br. 16) are not persuasive. Appellant presents no sufficiently distinct arguments with respect to the remaining depending claims, including separately rejected claims 4 and 5, over those addressed above with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 16-17). The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness under the law. IV. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we affirm the following rejections maintained by the Examiner: 1. Claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Uhlmann and Kistler Type 6169A and 2. Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Uhlmann, Kistler Type 6169A, and Frey. In affirming these rejections of all of the claims under reexamination, we need not address the Examiner’s additional rejections based on Kistler Type 1700A. V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2012-009760 Reexamination control 90/010,648 Patent 7,476,095 B2 9 AFFIRMED FOR PATENT OWNER: BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. 900 CHAPEL STREET SUITE 1201 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DORITY & MANNING PA P.O. BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation