Ex Parte Eleazer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2012

11518964 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/518,964 09/11/2006 Howell B. Eleazer 5964A 6003 25280 7590 09/19/2012 Legal Department (M-495) P.O. Box 1926 Spartanburg, SC 29304 EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 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 HOWELL B. ELEAZER, CHARLES W. PRESTRIDGE, HEATHER J. HAYES, and KARL M. GRUENBERG ____________ Appeal 2011-009026 Application 11/518,964 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11-13, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, 127, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 6,127,293 issued October 3, 2000) in view of Hino (JP 2000-45147A, published February 15, 2000; as translated). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set out in the Claims Appendix of the Brief. None of the claims are argued separately by Appellants. Appeal 2011-009026 Application 11/518,964 2 We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer1. We add the following for emphasis. Appellants’ main arguments that one would not have made the proposed modification to Kimura to use reinforcement fibers based on Hino (Br. 6), and even if the references were combined, it would not result in the claimed structure (Id.) are unavailing. In this regard, the claimed invention merely applies the well-known technique as exemplified in Hino of reinforcement fibers in woven fabric layers to yield predictable results of improved strength in the woven fabric layers of the composite of Kimura. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim, for it is proper to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. at 418. Appellants have also not refuted the Examiner’s reasonable claim interpretation with respect to the location of the claimed elements (Ans. 10; no reply brief has been filed). Appellants have also not presented any persuasive reasoning or evidence that the use of reinforcement fibers in addition to the material (e.g., Kraft paper) of Kimura would not have been within the level of skill in the art (Br. generally). 1 No Reply Brief has been filed. Appeal 2011-009026 Application 11/518,964 3 Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s rejection of the claims, and we sustain the § 103 rejection of all the claims on appeal. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED sld