Ex Parte Susnjara

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2016

12724985 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121724,985 03/16/2010 77407 7590 03/14/2016 Novak Drnce Connolly Bove+ Quigg LLP 1875 Eye St NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006-5409 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jason P. Susnjara 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 8386.026.USOOOO 8344 EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2016 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): Peter.Lalos@novakdrnce.com DCDocket@novakdrnce.com re nee.tisdale@novakdrnce.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON P. SUSNJARA Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 Technology Center 2100 Before THU ANN DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thermwood Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's invention generally relates to producing a set of parts, which may be assembled to form a product, including reproducing flawed or defective parts intended to be assembled. Spec. 1-2. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A method for producing a set of parts which may be assembled to form a product, comprising: programming a CNC machine to selectively execute a first routine to form a set of parts from a first panel of material, and generate a map of the layout of said parts on said first panel, provided with identifying indicia, and a set of labels each provided with machine readable indicia identifying the part and operator readable indicia permitting said operator to identify said part on said map, and a second routine to form selected ones of said set of parts from a second panel of material; loading said first panel of material on a worktable of said machine; operating said machine to execute said first routine; attaching each of the said generated labels to its corresponding formed part, matching identifying indicia on generated labels and map; removing said set of labeled parts from said worktable; identifj;ing labeled parts deemed defective; machine scanning the machine readable indicia on the labels of produced parts deemed defective; 2 Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 loading a second panel of material on said worktable; operating said machine to execute said second routine to reproduce said defective parts; and replacing said defective parts with said reproduced parts. Dick Sigtryggsson Clayton Bajocich References US 6,941,864 B2 US 2005/0240300 Al US 7 ,206,656 B2 US 2009/0125143 Al Rejections on Appeal Sept. 13, 2005 Oct. 27, 2005 Apr. 17, 2007 May 14, 2009 Claims 1--4, 9-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dick, Clayton, and Bajocich. Claims 5-8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dick, Clayton, Bajocich, and Sigtryggsson. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief2 and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-11) and in the Examiner's Answer in response to 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action, mailed Apr. 4, 2013 ("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 26, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed Nov. 14, 2013 ("Ans."); Appellant's Reply Brief, filed Jan. 14, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and, the original Specification, filed Mar. 16, 2010 ("Spec."). 3 Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 16), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner acknowledged in the Final Action that Dick does not teach the claimed procedure for replacing defective parts. App. Br. 7. Appellant further argues the Examiner relies on Clayton, column 4, lines 30-40, to provide a teaching of this procedure, but asserts such passage does not teach "the claimed procedure of identifying and segregating such defective parts, replacing the cut first panel with a second panel and utilizing the machine readable labels on the defective parts to machine replacement parts from such second panel." Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant again argues Clayton does not disclose or teach "the reproduction of a defective part by use of the machine readable indicia provided on the label having been attached to such part." 3 Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues in the Reply Brief that Bajocich similarly does not teach any modification of any structure of Dick as purportedly taught by Clayton to arrive at the claimed method "because of the failure of such references to teach the use of machine readable indicia on labels placed on 3 In the Reply Brief, Appellant also argues Clayton does not teach "the machine generation of a map indicating the layout of a set of produced parts[] [and] the machine generation of a set of labels, each provided with indicia permitting an operator to locate a produced part and attach a label thereon." Reply Br. 2. This argument is, however, waived as it was raised for the first time in the Reply Brief without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not."). 4 Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 defective parts through the use of a machine generated map indicating any application of such labels."4 Id. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner's rejection is based on the combined teachings of Dick, Clayton, and Bajocich (see Final Act. 2-5), but Appellant attacks the references individually, particularly Clayton. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). Regarding the limitations at issue, we agree with the Examiner's finding Dick teaches printing labels on which a variety of information and indicia can be stored, such as part numbers, job names, and other suitable information, and applying the labels to the correct parts that are cut. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 16 (citing Dick 9:8-17). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Clayton teaches labeling parts to be cut, identifying a defective broken part (i.e., a broken glass lite), and remaking the part on another panel (i.e., a sheet of glass). Final Act. 3; Ans. 16 (citing Clayton 4: 19--40; see also, Clayton 2: 13-28). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Bajocich 4 To the extent this argument concerns the failure of the references to teach the use of labels placed on parts "through the use of a machine generated map," the argument is waived as it was raised for the first time in the Reply Brief without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F .R. Â§ 41.41 (b )(2) (2012); see also Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1474. 5 Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 teaches reading a machine readable indicia and, based on the indicia, generating a replacement part because Bajocich teaches the use ofbarcodes, reading the barcode to generate part information, and, based on such information, providing a substitute or replacement part. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 16 (citing Bajocich i-fi-1 4, 11, 50). We also agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (a) to modify Dick in view of Clayton to identify labeled parts deemed defective and provide for replacing a defective part from another panel and (b) to modify Dick and Clayton in view of Bajocich to obtain information from the scanned label on the defective part for use in reproducing the defective part. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 16. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the combined teachings of the prior art references do not teach the limitations at issue. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings, and the reasons therefor, and that the combined teachings of Dick, Clayton, and Bajocich teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1. Therefore, based upon the findings discussed supra, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-20, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 7. 6 Appeal2014-003430 Application 12/724,985 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7