Ex Parte Sitzmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

13721239 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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. 13/721,239 12/20/2012 Stefan SITZMANN 100728-120 WCG 5683 27386 7590 03/28/2017 GERSTENZANG, WILLIAM C. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA 875 THIRD AVE, 8TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022 EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1787 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2017 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 STEFAN SITZMANN and GEORG DISTLER1 Appeal 2016-005861 Application 13/721,239 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’ rejections of claims 1—8, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Infiana Germany GmbH. Br. 1 Appeal 2016-005861 Application 13/721,239 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A release film or protective film having a silicone coating, which silicone coating is composed, at least at regular intervals, of a luminescent silicone coating section comprising at least one luminescent compound, wherein the luminescent silicone coating sections comprise from 0.1 to 15% by weight, based on a total weight of the silicone coating, of the luminescent compound. Appeal Br. 8. REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: 1. Claims 1—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreckel et al., (US 5,061,535, issued Oct. 29, 1991; hereinafter “Kreckel”) in view of Libby (US 4,250,382, issued Feb. 10, 1981) (Final Act. 3^4); and 2. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kreckel in view of Libby, and further in view of Tunc (US 3,897,782, issued Aug. 5, 1975) (Final Act. 4—5). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that “Kreckel teaches a release/protective film with a silicone coating arranged in regular intervals of sections.” Final Act. 3, citing Kreckel, Figs. 1—4, abstract, and 5:40-50. See also, Ans. 3. Appellants dispute this finding and contend that Kreckel’s silicone agent is “in the form of a definite geometric pattern consisting of discrete islands and bridges” and, thus, “is ‘continuous’ [] and is not formed of sections at ‘regular intervals’” as claimed. Br. 4. To support their 2 Appeal 2016-005861 Application 13/721,239 contention, Appellants proffer a definition for the term “interval” as being ‘“a space between two things; gap; distance’.” Id. We determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections, and therefore sustain the rejections for the reasons well-expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. Appellants offer no dispute of the Examiner’s determination that “there is no definition in the specification regarding what is meant by ‘regular interval’.” Ans. 5. Furthermore, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that Kreckel’s coating falls within Appellants’ own definition of the term “interval” because “the ‘discrete islands’ 2 [] of silicone material are separated by uncoated bridges 3 [], which clearly create[s] ‘intervals’ according to Appellants’] own meaning, i.e. creates ‘a space between two things; gap; distance’.” Id. at 7. Additionally, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s determination that “[t]here is no controlling definition of ‘regular’ in the present specification, but under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, [Kreckel’s] discrete islands 2 of silicone material are clearly arranged in a ‘regular’ pattern with regular intervals of the uncoated bridges 3 separating the discrete islands 2.” Id. Rather, other than making an unembellished assertion classifying Kreckel’s silicone coating as “continuous”, (Br. 4) Appellants fail to meaningfully distinguish the claimed silicone coating over Kreckel’s coating. We emphasize that no Reply Brief has been filed. Thus, Appellants have not identified any reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion of claim 1. Appellants do not argue dependent claims 2—8 separately (Br. 10); therefore, these claims fall with independent claim 1 for the same reasons. 3 Appeal 2016-005861 Application 13/721,239 Appellants contest the rejection of claims 12 and 13 by asserting that the disclosure of the Tunc reference “is not sufficient to overcome the deficits of K[reckel] and L[ibby] that are outlined in detail above [with respect to claim 1].” Id. at 6. Because Appellants’ argument with respect to claim 1 is unpersuasive, it is likewise unavailing for dependent claims 12 and 13. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 12 and 13 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 4