Ex Parte Straccia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2013

11609501 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 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. 11/609,501 12/12/2006 Ann Straccia 81150540 1214 28395 7590 05/17/2013 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2013 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 ANN STRACCIA, LARRY P. HAACK, JOSEPH WALTER HOLUBKA, and THOMAS MURRAY ____________ Appeal 2011-011046 Application 11/609,501 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011046 Application 11/609,501 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. Appellants claim a method for decorating a plastic component having an exterior surface wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface is decorated with a coating, the method comprising plasma treating at least a portion of the exterior surface and applying the coating to at least a portion of the treated exterior surface (independent claim 1; see also remaining independent claim 15). Representative claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method for decorating a plastic component having an exterior surface with an initial surface energy, wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface is decorated with a coating, the method comprising: fixturing the plastic component, wherein at least the portion of the exterior surface is positioned within a specified tolerance; plasma treating at least the portion of the exterior surface to a treated surface energy greater than the initial surface energy with an atmospheric-pressure air plasma nozzle to form a treated exterior surface; applying the coating to at least the portion of the treated exterior surface, wherein the coating has a coating surface energy that does not substantially exceed the treated surface energy; and curing the coating. Appeal 2011-011046 Application 11/609,501 3 Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner rejects: claims 1, 2, 8, and 10-13 as unpatentable over Straccia (US 2004/0258850 A1, published Dec. 23, 2004) in view of Moser (US 2006/0006382 A1, published Jan. 12, 2006); claims 3-7, 9, and 14 as unpatentable over Straccia, Moser, and Penelon (US 2006/0156983 A1, published Jul. 20, 2006); claims 15-18 and 20 as unpatentable over Straccia, Moser, Penelon, and Reiffer (US 6,042,163, issued Mar. 28, 2000); and claim 19 as unpatentable over the references cited immediately above and further in view of Chern (US 6,398,622 B1, issued Jun. 4, 2002). Appellants present arguments directed to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (App. Br. 5-9) but do not present additional separate arguments specifically directed to the other claims under rejection (see id. at 9-12). Therefore, we focus on claims 1 and 2 in our disposition of this appeal. We will affirm the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis. A fundamental position of Appellants is that Straccia contains no teaching or suggestion of plasma treating an exterior surface of a plastic component prior to coating the exterior surface as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 6, Reply Br. 2). This position is not well taken. The Examiner finds that Straccia discloses plasma treating different types of polymeric components including a vehicle-frame paint layer (i.e., a plastic layer) or a plastic part followed by coating the paint layer with a urethane adhesive and subjecting the plastic part to paint preprocessing baths then a paint coating step (Ans. 5-6, 16-17 Appeal 2011-011046 Application 11/609,501 4 citing, e.g., Straccia Abst. and paras. [0024] and [0035]-[0038]). Appellants do not address these specific findings by the Examiner and therefore do not inform us as to why claim 1 is considered to distinguish from the above steps taught or at least suggested by Straccia wherein a polymer paint layer is plasma treated then coated with urethane or wherein a plastic part is plasma treated and subsequently coated with paint. In light of these Straccia findings and in view of Moser's teaching of plasma treating a plastic surface in order to increase adhesion of a subsequently applied coating, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to practice Straccia's plasma treating step prior to the coating step in order to increase coating adhesion (Ans. 6). In response, Appellants argue that, "if Straccia . . . were to modify her process [sic] to include the plasma treatment before coating as taught by Moser, then Straccia . . . would be plasma treating a metal surface-not a plastic surface" (App. Br. 7). This argument has no persuasive merit. As explained earlier, Straccia teaches or at least would have suggested embodiments wherein the plasma treating step occurs before the coating step. Furthermore, both Straccia and Moser teach plasma treating a plastic surface as correctly explained by the Examiner (Ans. para. bridging 16-17). Appellants do not identify any support for their proposition that these references would have suggested plasma treating a metal surface. Appellants further argue that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Moser with its batch evacuation of a reaction chamber to modify Appeal 2011-011046 Application 11/609,501 5 the in-line atmospheric-pressure air plasma [of Straccia] which operates entirely at atmospheric pressure" (App. Br. 8). Appellants' argument is unconvincing because the Examiner's proposed combination of Straccia and Moser does not involve any modification of Straccia's plasma. Finally, Appellants argue that claim 2 "recite[s] that the functionalized layer is created from the exterior surface of the plastic component, which cannot be the Examiner's asserted coating" (App. Br. para. bridging 8-9) "because paint is not an exterior surface of a plastic component" (id.). As indicated previously, the Examiner finds that Straccia's polymeric paint layer constitutes a plastic component, and Appellants have not contested this finding with any reasonable specificity in the appeal record before us. With this circumstance in mind, we point out that the exterior surface of Straccia's paint layer (i.e., plastic component) with a functionalized polymer layer thereon would fully satisfy the argued limitation of claim 2. In addition, the argument under consideration does not address the Straccia embodiment identified by the Examiner and discussed previously wherein the polymeric component constitutes a plastic part. For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, Appellants have failed to reveal any error in the Â§ 103 rejections on appeal. Therefore, we sustain these rejections. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. Appeal 2011-011046 Application 11/609,501 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED kmm