Ex Parte EydnerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201612881967 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) 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. 7863-98209 2028 EXAMINER KIM, CHRISTOPHER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/881,967 09/14/2010 Reinhold EYDNER 42798 7590 12/12/2016 FITCH, EVEN, TAB IN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603-3406 12/12/2016 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 REINHOLD EYDNER Appeal 2015-000756 Application 12/881,967 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Reinhold Eydner (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—10 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2015-000756 Application 12/881,967 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Nozzle foil for a nozzle bar (10) of a textile processing machine, the nozzle foil comprising: an elongate foil body defining a plurality of nozzle openings (16), the elongate foil body configured to be secured between an inlet channel (13) and an outlet channel (18) of a carrier element (11) of the nozzle bar (10) to allow pressurized fluid introduced into the inlet channel (13) to form fluid jets (19) extending out of the nozzle openings (16) and into the outlet channel (18) of the carrier element (11), wherein the elongate foil body comprises at least two foil segments (25) configured to connect with each other, wherein the elongate foil body has a thickness between 0.1 to 1.5 millimeters. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Casebolt US 1,020,024 Mar. 12, 1912 REJECTIONS I. Claims 5—10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. II. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Casebolt. III. Claims \-A stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Casebolt. 2 Appeal 2015-000756 Application 12/881,967 DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellant does not contest the rejection of claims 5—10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See, generally, Appeal Br. In the Reply Brief, Appellant requests “that these minor, non-substantive issues be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the disputes addressed with this appeal brief.” Reply Br. 3. Our rules do not provide for the holding of a rejection in abeyance. Rather, 37 C.F.R. 41.31(c) states “[a]n appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.” Accordingly, as arguments pertaining to the rejection of claims 5—10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph have been filed, we summarily sustain this rejection. Rejection II The Examiner finds that Casebolt discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 15. Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Casebolt discloses “an elongate foil body 10, 15 defining a plurality of nozzle openings 12.” Id. Appellant contends that “[njothing in Casebolt discloses an ‘elongate foil body’ as that phrase would be understood by one of skill in the art in view of the specif[i]cation of the pending application.” Appeal Br. 9. In support of this contention, Appellant notes that “[]t]he Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the adjective ‘elongate’ as ‘stretched out’ or ‘slender’” and “‘foil’ as ‘very thin sheet metal.” Id. (citations omitted). Based on these definitions, Appellant argues that “the phrase ‘elongate foil 3 Appeal 2015-000756 Application 12/881,967 body’ would mean ... a ‘stretched out or slender very thin sheet metal body.’” Id. Appellant further explains that the Specification supports this definition. See id. Then, applying this definition, Appellant argues that: Casebolt only discloses his head or burner tip 10 and steam nozzle 15 as bulky chamber defining elements. There is no suggestion that these elements are or could be a “stretched out or slender very thin sheet metal body,” which is how the claim language “elongate foil body” would be understood when read by one of skill in the art. Id. at 10. Appellant is correct. Casebolt’s burner tip 10 and steam nozzle 15 do not constitute an “elongate foil body” as required by claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 as anticipated by Casebolt. Rejection III The Examiner finds that Casebolt discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1 except for “the elongate foil body 10,15 having a thickness between 0.1 to 1.5 mm.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use such a thickness based on optimization reasoning. See id. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 relies upon the same erroneous finding — that Casebolt discloses an elongate foil body — as the rejection of claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-4 which depend therefrom, for the reason discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 15. 4 Appeal 2015-000756 Application 12/881,967 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) is REVERSED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation