Ex Parte Steeman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 2017

13256327 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 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. 13/256,327 12/05/2011 Reinard Jozef Maria Steeman BHD-4662-1970 1287 23117 7590 12/28/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REINARD JOZEF MARIA STEEMAN1 Appeal 2017-0004355 Application 13/256,327 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DSM IP Assets, B.V. Appeal 2017-0004355 Application 13/256,327 Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14-21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 14 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 14. A device for producing an oriented or a highly oriented non-fibrous, polymer tape, wherein the polymer comprised by said tape is a high molecular weight polymer, the device comprising: a) a forming unit having an upper and lower rotating belt, between which particles of polymer can be fed, and a compressing unit for compressing the particles to form a non-fibrous polymer sheet; b) a calendar unit and heater for rolling and stretching the sheet and forming at least a partially oriented polymer web; c) a drawing unit and heater for drawing the at least partially oriented polymer web and forming a more oriented non-fibrous polymer tape; d) at least two additional drawing units with heaters, and e) at least one take-up station and at least one feed station between each of the drawing unit c) and the first drawing unit of d), and the two additional drawing units of d). 2 Appeal 2017-0004355 Application 13/256,327 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Dunbar et al. (“Dunbar”) US 5,741,451 Apr. 21. 1998 Weedon et al. (“Weedon”) US 2008/0318016 Al Dec. 25, 2008 Harding et al. (“Harding”) US 2008/0251960 Al Oct. 16, 2008 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weedon in view of Dunbar. 2. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weedon in view of Dunbar, as applied to claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 above, and further in view of Harding. ANALYSIS To the extent that Appellant has presented substantive arguments for the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in this appeal, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm. 3 Appeal 2017-0004355 Application 13/256,327 Rejection 1 On page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner provides a summary of the limitations of claim 14 in dispute in this case. The limitations involve the claimed drawing units of part d) and the stations of part e). On page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner provides a diagram that illustrates this aspect of the claim, reproduced below: Par? cj Ufti; Appellant argues that (1) Weedon does not suggest the second drawing unit (part d) of the claim 14), and that (2) Weedon does not disclose a take-up and feed station between each of the three drawing units as required by claim 14. Appeal Br. 5-6. As to the argument that Weedon does not describe a second additional drawing unit, we agree with the Examiner’s reply made on page 3 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that this argument is not persuasive because Weedon is not relied upon to teach the second additional drawing unit in the rejection; rather, the teaching of a second additional drawing unit is taught by the secondary reference of Dunbar. The Examiner states that in the combination with Dunbar, a second additional drawing unit is added to the device of Weedon downstream of the first additional drawing unit of Weedon, and the combination of Weedon in view of Dunbar includes all three required drawing units. Ans. 3; Final Act. 3 (relying on, inter alia, Dunbar, col. 1,11. 15-18; col. 1,11. 50-55). Pari *J} Ssco-rsS Aciditicijial Drawing Urrii 4 Appeal 2017-0004355 Application 13/256,327 With regard to the take-up and feed stations, Appellant argues that “a take- up unit is not explicitly mentioned” (Appeal Br. 6) between the part c) drawing unit of Weedon (Figure 1) and the part d) first additional drawing unit of Weedon (Figure 2, item (44)). Appellant states that the Examiner considers these stations to be “implicitly described” (Appeal Br. 5). We are unpersuaded by such argument for the reasons provided by the Examiner in response thereto, made on pages 3-5 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner adequately provides findings in support of the position in the rejection, which we incorporate herein as our own. We add that drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979). In the instant case, the Examiner’s evaluation of the drawings is appropriate for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the record, and Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us otherwise. Appellant also argues that there is no suggestion to add the additional drawing unit of Dunbar as proposed by the Examiner, for the reasons set forth on pages 6-10 of the Appeal Brief, which we do not repeat herein. We are unpersuaded by the arguments presented therein for the reason provided by the Examiner in response, made on pages 5-11 of the Answer, which we adopt as our own in its entirety. We emphasize that contrary to Appellants’ stated position, Dunbar is not limited to post-stretching of a solution spun fiber, but includes tape. Ans. 6. Dunbar, col. 5,11. 49-51. In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1. Rejection 2 Appellant relies upon the same arguments presented for Rejection 1, for Rejection 2. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant again argues that Dunbar pertains to fibers 5 Appeal 2017-0004355 Application 13/256,327 and not tape (Appeal Br. 10-11), which is not convincing for the reasons, discussed, supra. We thus also affirm Rejection 2. Reply Brief In the Reply Brief, Appellants reiterate their position that the applied art does not suggest the take-up and feed stations (unwinding station). Reply Br. 1. However, as discussed above, we are unpersuaded by such argument. Appellants also argue that one skilled in the art is not taught how to add a post draw step of Dunbar to the process of Weedon. Reply Br. 1. However, as discussed above, we are unpersuaded by such argument. DECISION Each rejection is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). ORDER AFFIRMED 6