Ex Parte Hire et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 201712683892 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017) 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. 12/683,892 01/07/2010 Randy Hire AIM0001.US 4072 41863 7590 TAYLOR IP, P.C. P.O. Box 560 142. S Main Street A villa, IN 46710 EXAMINER LE, NINH V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2017 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 RANDY HIRE, TIM PAPE, TOAINGO, and SCOTT PFLUGHOEFT Appeal 2016-002686 Application 12/683,892 Technology Center 1700 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JULIA HEANEY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9, 10, 12—16, 18, and 19 of Application 12/683,892 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.2 We have 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ashley Industrial Molding, Inc. Appeal Brief dated June 5, 2015 (“App. Br.”) 3. 2 Final Rejection dated Dec. 29, 2014 (“Final Act.”) 3—15. This Decision also refers to the Examiner’s Answer dated Nov. 13, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief dated Jan. 13, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-002686 Application 12/683,892 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of injection molding. App. Br. 7. Representative claim 9 is reproduced below with italics added to highlight limitations of the claim argued by Appellants {id. at 13): 9. A method for molding a part including a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface, said method comprising the steps of: providing a pressure supply arrangement and a Reaction Injection Molding (RIM) arrangement including a pin plate assembly and a mold defining a mold cavity, said pin plate assembly coupled with said pressure supply arrangement and said mold; supplying a bi-component liquid mixture to said mold cavity using said RIM arrangement; reacting chemically said bi-component liquid mixture and thereby forming a thermoset polymer; determining said thermoset polymer has sufficiently polymerized in said mold cavity to prevent the inclusion of gases in the forming thermoset polymer; and supplying, using said pressure supply arrangement, an inert gas to said mold cavity via said pin plate assembly, under an increasing pressure until the part is formed, and thereby one of reducing and eliminating a formation of a sink mark on the first surface of the part, said inert gas being supplied to said mold cavity in a plurality of stages, during each of said plurality of stages said inert gas applies a predetermined pressure for a predetermined period of time to the part as the part is being formed, each successive one of said plurality of stages increasing said pressure of said inert gas in said mold cavity, said plurality of stages including a first stage, a second 2 Appeal 2016-002686 Application 12/683,892 stage and a third stage, said first stage being initiated after said determining step. Id. at 19 (Claims Appx). REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kelsey,3 Ito,4 and Homann.5 Final Act. 3. 2. Claims 12—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kelsey, Ito, Homann, Baxi,6 and Myles.7 Final Act. 10. DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Appellants present argument for claim 9 as representative of all claims subject to Rejection 1. App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to claim 9; claims 10, 18, and 19 stand or fall with claim 9, from which they depend. We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. 3 Kelsey, US 5,071,812, issued Dec. 10, 1991 (“Kelsey”). 4 Ito et al., US 2007/0120296 Al, pub. May 31, 2007 (“Ito”). 5 Homann et al., US 2005/0242475 Al, pub. Nov. 3, 2005 (“Homann”). 6 Baxi, US 5,198,240, issued Mar. 30, 1993 (“Baxi”). 7 Myles, US 5,443,087, issued Aug. 22, 1995 (“Myles”). 3 Appeal 2016-002686 Application 12/683,892 Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). Appellants argue that Homann’s disclosure of gas pressure decreasing within a mold cavity as it is filled with plastic material is contrary to claim 9’s requirement of “each successive one of said plurality of stages increasing said pressure of said inert gas in said mold cavity,” and thus teaches against the Examiner’s proposed combination of Kelsey, Ito, and Homann. App. Br. 16. As stated by Appellants, the Examiner errs in determining obviousness because: the proposed modification alters the principles of operation of Homann by increasing the gas pressure in the void as the plastic front advances whereas Homann teaches decreasing the gas pressure in the void as the plastic front advances. Id. Appellants specifically rely on Homann 1 51 as teaching that a gas volume being supplied from a fixed volume reservoir will decrease in pressure as the gas is injected and contained in plastic material within a mold cavity, which eliminates the possibility of the gas overcoming the injected plastic as it is being injected and causing a blowout. Id. at 11, 15 (citing Homann 151). The Examiner responds that claim 9 does not exclude a pressure decrease within the mold cavity following the initial supply of inert gas. Ans. 16. The evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Homann’s process discloses a first stage of injecting nitrogen gas at low pressure into plastic material within a mold cavity to prevent blowout of the plastic, followed by a second stage of introducing pressurized nitrogen gas into the molded plastic after additional plastic material is injected. Ans. 8 (providing citations to Homann). 4 Appeal 2016-002686 Application 12/683,892 We discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 9 or findings regarding Homann. Further, Appellants’ argument that Homann teaches against the Examiner’s determination of obviousness does not persuade us of reversible error, because there is no evidence that the disclosure of Homann | 51 would discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from using Homann’s process, which clearly teaches two stages of injecting nitrogen gas, initially at low pressure then followed by higher pressure. See Homann || 11—18, 38—51. Moreover, Appellants concede in the Reply Brief that the teachings of Homann as applied to Ito would provide “two gas pressures . . . injected to accompany the two specific events that occur in each closed space.” Reply Br. 3. In the Reply Brief, Appellants also raise for the first time that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Ito, which would inject gas at increasing pressures through Ito’s inlets 4A, 4B, and 4C successively, “would actually increase the risk of blow out during the molding taught by Ito” because gas entering at increasing pressures at the locations of inlets 4A-C would exert a net force against the filling plastic material. Id. at 4—5. Rule 41 provides that “[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief. . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(1) and (2). Appellants have not shown good cause as to why we should consider those new arguments, especially considering that due to the failure to present those arguments earlier, the Examiner did not have an opportunity to address them. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (“When new issues have been raised by the Appellant but not addressed by the Examiner, the Board, unless good cause 5 Appeal 2016-002686 Application 12/683,892 is shown, will not consider those new issues.”). As a result, we decline to consider the new arguments raised in the Reply Brief. Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 1. Rejection 2 Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Rejection 2, and rely on the same arguments as discussed above for Rejection 1. Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 2 for the same reasons as Rejection 1. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12—16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation