Ex Parte Poulakis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2013

12735998 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

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.
12/735,998 08/31/2010 Konstantinos Poulakis 57371 6837
1609 7590 11/26/2013
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2013 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 KONSTANTINOS POULAKIS
____________

Appeal 2012-009752
Application 12/735,998
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 9-26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A method for producing a heat-resistant adhesive closure,
comprising the steps of:

forming a plurality of metal securing elements, each with a hooked
head and a foot part formed as a tang;

forming a backing structure with a securing surface;

perforating the securing surface to form preformed seats for receiving
the tangs of the securing elements prior to the securing elements engaging
the backing structure; and
Appeal 2012-009752
Application 12/735,998

2

after the perforating, inserting the tangs of the securing elements into
the seats previously perforated into the securing surface.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Brumlik ('803) 3,899,803 Aug. 19, 1975
Brumlik ('259) 3,921,259 Nov. 25, 1975
Hattori et al. (Hattori) 5,625,929 May 6, 1997

Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method for producing a
heat-resistant adhesive closure. The method comprises forming a backing
structure with a securing surface by perforating the surface to form
performed seats for receiving the tangs of a metal securing element
comprising a hooked head and a tang. After perforating the surface, the
tangs are inserted into the seats of the perforated surface.
Appealed claims 9, 10, 12-14, 17-19, 21-23, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Brumlik '259. The
appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 11 and 20 over Brumlik '259 in view of Brumlik '803,
(b) claims 15 and 24 over Brumlik '259 in view of Hattori, and
(c) claims 16 and 25 over Brumlik '259.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agree with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
Appeal 2012-009752
Application 12/735,998

3
The principal argument advanced by Appellant with respect to the
§ 102 rejection over Brumlik '259 is that the shafts of Brumlik's metal
securing elements are only attachable to the base by penetration and they are
not attached in preformed seats as described in the appealed claims.
Appellant contends that "the Brumlik '259 patent only discloses openings in
a backing layer which are formed in situ by the insertion of the gripping
element into the backing layer [and] (t)he method does not involve
preforming seats for the tangs of the securing elements" (Prin. Br., para.
bridging pages 5-6). Appellant contends that "[s]ince the Brumlik '259 only
discloses forming the openings in the backing of the support structure by the
securing element insertion, it does not disclose or render obvious the method
cited in claim 9 that requires preformed seats prior to engagement of the
securing elements and the backing structure" (Prin. Br. 6, first para.).
We do not subscribe to Appellant's argument. We concur with the
Examiner that the Brumlik’259, by disclosing a perforated metal sheet as the
receiving material, which allows the gripping elements to become retained
therein, implicitly teaches the claimed method of perforating the securing
surface to form preformed seats for receiving the metal securing elements.
In our view, the reference disclosure fairly describes, within the meaning of
§ 102, that one method for securing the gripping elements is for the
receiving layer to be a perforated metal sheet wherein the perforations allow
the gripping elements to be lodged or retained therein (see col. 6, ll. 18-32).
Manifestly, the receiving sheet must undergo the step of perforation before
the gripping elements are inserted.
Appeal 2012-009752
Application 12/735,998

4
We find no merit in Appellant's argument that Brumlik "does not
disclose whether the perforations extend completely through the metal and
whether they open on a securing surface" (Reply Br. 2, first para.). A
common dictionary definition of the term "perforate" is to make a hole
through a material, and we are convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably understood the perforated metal of Brumlik to
comprise perforations or holes which extend through the metal sheet.
Moreover, Appellant's argument is not germane to the claimed subject
matter, which does not recite perforating the securing surface completely
through the surface.
As for separately argued claims 11 and 20, Appellant has not rebutted
the Examiner's finding that Brumlik '803 "teaches a similar method of
creating a securing object including securing elements (gripping elements
12) attached to a base (plane or sheet 10) and the ability to use adhesive,
brazing or soldering material 50 to attach the gripping elements to the base
(see column 3, lines 26-40; figures 5 and 10)" (Ans. 4, penultimate para.).
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-009752
Application 12/735,998

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam