Ex Parte Tai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2014

12308609 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TOSHIHIRO TAI
____________

Appeal 2013-001838
Application 12/308,609
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and ROMULO H.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) of claims 1–9 as unpatentable over Sano
(US 5,326,811, issued Jul. 5, 1994) in view of Morimoto (JP 2000345031 A,
published Dec. 12, 2000) and Enomoto (US 5,218,069, issued Jun. 8, 1993).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2013-001838
Application 12/308,609

2
We AFFIRM.

Appellant claims a plated resin molded article composed of a resin
composition comprising a polyamide-based resin and a styrene-based resin
in combination with either pentaerythritol or dipentaerythritol and a polymer
having a maleimide-based monomer unit (independent claim 1). Appellant
also claims a method of making such an article (independent claim 5).

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A plated resin molded article comprising:
a resin molded article having a metallic plating layer on
the surface thereof, composed of a resin composition comprising
(A) a synthetic resin comprising (A-1) a polyamide-based resin
and (A-2) a styrene-based resin, (B) a water-soluble substance
having a solubility in water (at 25°C) ranging from 0.01/100 g
to 10 g/100 g and selected from the group consisting of
pentaerythritol and dipentaerythritol, and (C) a polymer having
a maleimide-based monomer unit, provided that the resin molded
article is not treated by etching with an acid containing
chromium and/or manganese.

Appellant does not present separate arguments directed to the
dependent claims under rejection (see Br. 4–6). As a consequence, these
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims of
which claim 1 is representative.

Appeal 2013-001838
Application 12/308,609

3
We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments which are well expressed by
the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We add the following
comments solely for emphasis.

Appellant's arguments that the applied references fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness (Br. 4–6) lack convincing merit for the
reasons detailed by the Examiner (Ans. 3–4). In short, these arguments are
not persuasive because they inappropriately attack the references
individually and because they assert without explanatory or evidentiary
support that the relied-upon ingredients of Morimoto and Enomoto would
not be expected to perform their established functions when combined with
the components of Sano. Moreover, Appellant's argument of unexpected
results (Br. 6) is unpersuasive because, for example, the proffered data is not
reasonably commensurate in scope with the independent claims as fully
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5). We emphasize that the Examiner's
reasons for considering these arguments to be unconvincing have not been
challenged by Appellant (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed).

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

Appeal 2013-001838
Application 12/308,609

4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

lp