Ex Parte Hire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

12683892 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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