Ex Parte Stone

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

15208084 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
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