Ex Parte StoneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201715208084 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 15/208,084 07/12/2016 Norman Stone RR-801 2328 20427 7590 12/26/2017 RODMAN RODMAN EXAMINER 10 STEWART PLACE A, PHI DIEU TRAN SUITE 2CE WHITE PLAINS, NY 10603 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/26/2017 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): rodrod @ rodman-rodman. com Charles @ rodman-rodman. com phil@rodman-rodman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NORMAN STONE Appeal 2017-011839 Application 15/208,084 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Norman Stone (Appellant)1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—20 as unpatentable over Appellant’s disclosure (para. 3—11) (hereinafter “AAPA”); Estape (US 2004/0128932 Al, pub. July 8, 2004) and St. Louis (US 5,383,312, iss. Jan. 24, 1995, hereinafter “Louis”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Tower IPCO Company Limited. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in the Final Office Action, dated March 7, 2017 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2017-011839 Application 15/208,084 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1,10, and 19 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A wall and ceiling tile comprising, a) a tile member unit (10) having a polygonal shape with first and second pairs of opposite edges (20, 22, and 28, 30), a front surface (12) and a back surface (14), and a predetermined thickness between the front surface (12) and the back surface (14), b) said tile member unit (10) including a single foam plastic material main layer (11) having a front foam surface (11a) and a back foam surface (14), the back foam surface (14) of the main layer (11) being the back surface (14) of the tile member unit (10), c) a design film (12) joined to the front foam surface (11a) of the main layer (11) such that the design film (12) forms the front surface (12) of the tile member unit (10), and d) an adhesive tape securement system on the back foam surface (14) of the main layer (11), the adhesive tape securement system including, (i) a first and second strip of double-sided adhesive tape (70,72) respectively extending along each edge (20, 22) of one of said pairs of opposite edges and spanning the distance between the other said pair of opposite edges (28, 30), and (ii) a third and fourth strip of double-sided adhesive tape (76, 78) respectively extending along each edge (28, 30) of the other said pair of opposite edges and said third and fourth strip of double-sided adhesive tape (76, 78) each extending from the first strip of double-sided adhesive tape (20) to the second strip of double-sided adhesive tape (22), whereby the adhesive tape securement system is arranged along the entire peripheral edge of the tile member unit (10) to secure the wall and ceiling tile to a wall and ceiling surface. 2 Appeal 2017-011839 Application 15/208,084 ANALYSIS Obviousness of Claims 1—20 over AAPA, Louis, and Estape Appellant argues claims 1—20 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as obvious over AAPA, Louis, and Estape. See Appeal Br. 4— 13; Reply Br. 2—3. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding claim 1, Appellant acknowledges that an “elongated rectangular wall plank formed of a wood or wood composite material [that] includes a front surface with a wood grain design and a back surface with three elongated strips of double—sided adhesive tape” that “extend the full length of the plank,” is known.3 Furthermore, the Examiner finds that “Estape shows a single foam plastic material main layer having a front foam surface and a back foam surface, [where a] design film forms the front surface of the tile member unit to form a light foam structure,” and that Louis “shows a substrate attached to its supporting structure with [double sided] adhesive tape.” Final Act. 3. Based on the foregoing, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify [Appellant’s] teaching (par. 2—11) to show a single foam plastic material main layer having a front foam surface and a back foam surface, [where] the design film forms the front surface of the tile member unit as taught [by] Estape in order to provide a light weight foam tile member unit for mounting, and having the double sided adhesive [tape] comprising. . . [an] adhesive tape securement system [that] is arranged along the entire peripheral edge of the tile member 3 Specification, 110. 3 Appeal 2017-011839 Application 15/208,084 unit to secure the wall and ceiling tile to a wall and ceiling surface as taught by [Louis] in order to securely mount the tile to its supporting surface. Id. at 3^4. In taking issue with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, Appellant acknowledges that “Estave states at paragraph [0073] that the foam wall panel 1 can be fabricated in large sizes to replace dry wall,” but contends that “[t]here is no showing or suggestion in list ape that it is feasible to attach the same foam wall panel 1 to a ceiling surface with double-sided adhesive tape.” Appeal Br. 10. However, Appellant misreads Estape, which teaches foam panels for adhesive attachment to both walls and ceilings.4 Furthermore, Appellant is simply attacking Estape in isolation for lacking support for a teaching for which it was not cited. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner explains, “(Estape [teaches] a light weight panel; Louis teaches adhesive tapes to securely mount the panel to a supporting structure).” Ans. 9. Appellant also contends “[t]here is no showing or suggestion in Estave that it would be feasible to use double-sided adhesive tape to secure his foam panel to a wall,” and “that neither Estape or Louis [] individually or collectively, show or suggest a dual use foam tile wherein the same tile can be secured to both a wall surface and a ceiling surface by double-sided adhesive tape.” Appeal Br. 11—12. 4 See for example, paragraph 31 of Estape. 4 Appeal 2017-011839 Application 15/208,084 However, Appellant’s argument is foreclosed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007), in which the Court rejected the rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness. Id. at 415. Thus, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417. In this case, the Examiner reasons that “[t]he combination results in [Appellant’s] disclosed prior art being [a] light weight foam panel [that is] securely adhesively attached] to its supporting substrate as claimed.” Ans. 9. Appellant continues by contending that the combination of Estape and Louis is inoperable, because “if Estape were to secure his foam wall panel to a ceiling with double-sided adhesive tape it is very likely that the large, bulky foam wall panel would detach from the ceiling.” Appeal Br. 12. However, Appellant’s contention amounts to unsupported attorney argument, and thus is entitled to little, if any, weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant also contends that “without the benefit of [Appellant’s] disclosure there would be no logical or reasonable basis for persons of ordinary skill in the art to combine Estape with Louis.’ '’ Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 2—3. However, Appellant has not identified any knowledge that the Examiner relied upon that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); see also Radix Corp. v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 5 Appeal 2017-011839 Application 15/208,084 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) (“[A]ny obviousness inquiry necessarily involves some hindsight.”). Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 over AAPA, Estape, and Louis. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation