Ex Parte Michalk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

12699474 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/699,474
22442 7590
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
02/03/2010 Manfred MICHALK
04/21/2016
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5607-33 5980
EXAMINER
PHAN, THIEM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
e-docket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANFRED MICHALK
Appeal2014-003290
Application 12/699,474 1
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant:
The present invention relates to a method to strip a portion
of an insulated wire and a machine carrying out this method.
This method is advantageously used for the manufacturing of
electronic components like transponders, whose antenna is
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is HID Global GmbH.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003290
Application 12/699,474
commonly made of very thin insulated wires, more particularly
in the case of embedded wire antennas for HF transponders.
Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1-9 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on
appeal and recites:
1. A method to strip bare a portion of an insulated wire
comprising at least a wire core surrounded by an insulation,
wherein before stripping away the insulation, said portion of the
wire including its insulation and wire core are first flattened.
Appeal Br. 12.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ishikawa. 2
2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishikawa.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Pichler. 3
4. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Lawson. 4
2 Ishikawa et al., US 5,189,786, iss. Mar. 2, 1993.
3 Pichler, US 6,936,761 B2, iss. Aug. 30, 2005.
4 Lawson, US 4,761,535, iss. Aug. 2, 1988.
2
Appeal2014-003290
Application 12/699,474
Anticipation
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument
that Ishikawa fails to disclose a method in which the wire core is flattened
before the wire is stripped. See Appeal Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds that Ishikawa discloses that the wire and wire
core are "first clamped (Fig. 1, 11) and flattened (Col. 1, lines 53-62) by the
Pressure Unit (Fig. 1, item 12 at Pe)." Ans. 2-3. The portion of Ishikawa
relied upon by the Examiner discloses:
a stripping method for stripping an electrical cable having a
conductor wire wound around a core member and a coating
member tightly mounted on the conductor wire, comprises the
steps of clamping the electrical cable at a clamping position
which is adjacent an end portion of the electrical cable, pounding
and bending the end portion to separate the coating member from
the conductor wire, and stripping the electrical cable of the
coating member at the pounded end portion.
Ishikawa, col. 1, 11. 53---62. Although Ishikawa discloses that the cable is
clamped, pounded, and bent, Ishikawa does not expressly disclose that the
wire core is flattened as required by claim 1. Further, the Examiner has not
persuasively shown that the wire core is inherently flattened during this
process. Although clamping, pounding, or bending the wire may make it
likely that the wire core is flattened in some manner, we find that it is not
necessarily so. Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)
("Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities."); quoted in Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co.,
948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, we are persuaded that the
Examiner's rejection is not adequately supported on the record before us.
3
Appeal2014-003290
Application 12/699,474
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5-7 and 9.
Obviousness
We find that the Examiner's rejections based on obviousness do not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as discussed
above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2--4
and 8 for the same reasons set forth above.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of
claims 1-9.
REVERSED
4