Ex Parte Weismantel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12746910 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
12/746,910 06/08/2010 Matthias Weismantel 29827/45418 3072
4743 7590 09/05/2017
MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
6300 WILLIS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6357
EXAMINER
SANDERS, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS WEISMANTEL,
RUDIGER FUNK, LEIGH R. BLAIR,
and KEVIN D. HEITZHAUS
Appeal 2015-005550
Application 12/746,910
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
dated December 23, 2014 (“App. Br”). The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. An apparatus for producing water-absorbing polymer particles
by polymerizing monomers on a continuous conveyor belt, wherein
Appeal 2015-005550
Application 12/746,910
the conveyor belt surface comprises silicone rubber, joins of the
conveyor belt are sealed with a sealing composition based on silicone
rubber, and the conveyor belt comprises at least one releasable
mechanical connector.
App. Br., Claims Appendix A-l.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chmelir et al.1 in view of JP 683;2 and
(2) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chmelir in
view of JP 683, and further in view of Westbrook.3
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Chmelir discloses an apparatus for polymerizing
monomers on an endless conveyor belt that comprises silicone rubber. Final 2—3
(citing Chmelir, col. 9,11. 52—55 and col. 6,11. 5—11).4 The Examiner finds
Chmelir does not teach that the conveyor belt comprises joins sealed with a sealing
composition based on silicone rubber or a releasable mechanical connector as
recited in claim 1. Final 3.
The Examiner, however, finds that “in a related field of endeavor pertaining
to the joint of a conveyor belt,” JP 683 discloses a conveyor belt comprising a
releasable mechanical connector (i.e., coupling bar or rod in JP 683, Figure 31) as
recited in claim 1. Final 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chmelir’s conveyor belt with
1 US 4,893,999, issued January 16, 1990 (“Chmelir”).
2 JP 10-030683A, published February 3, 1998 (“JP 683”).
3 US 4,647,641, issued March 3, 1987 (“Westbrook”).
4 Final Office Action dated July 24, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-005550
Application 12/746,910
the connector of JP 683 “since Chmelir . . . [is] silent regarding such connection
details.” Final 3.
The Appellants argue:
The essential and most important feature of [Chmelir] is the use
of a conveyor that initially is in the form of a trough, which then
flattens continuously as the polymerization proceeds. The feature of a
trough keeps the monomer solution from escaping the conveyor and
provides a thicker strand of polymer gel that is more readily removed
from the conveyor, i.e., is less adhesive, for example. Importantly, the
conveyor belt of [Chmelir] must be flexible across its width in order to
initially form a trough then flatten out, i.e., “the flexible conveyor belt
is converted back from the curved trough-like shape to the flat and
extended state” (column 6, lines 53-55). Also see Figs. 1 and 2 of
[Chmelir],
App. Br. 13.
The Appellants argue that JP 683, on the other hand, is directed to the
manufacture of corrugated board sheets. App. Br. 13 (citing JP 683, ^fl[ 1 4). The
Appellants argue that the corrugator belt and connector disclosed in JP 683 are
necessarily rigid because JP 683 “requires a flat belt in order to provide flat sheet
of corrugated product.” App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 3.5 If the connector of JP 683
(i.e., a coupling bar or rod) were used in Chmelir, the Appellants argue that an
inoperable process would result. App. Br. 15—16. That is, “[t]he insertion of a
rigid rod means that the conveyor cannot form a trough that gradually flattens, as
required by [Chmelir].” App. Br. 16; see also App. Br. 19 (arguing that the result
of the combination of Chmelir and JP 683 “is a rigid conveyor belt across its
width”).
In response, the Examiner finds that JP 683 does not teach that the rod is
rigid and concludes that “it would have been obvious to one to use a flexible rod
5 Reply Brief dated May 1, 2015.
3
Appeal 2015-005550
Application 12/746,910
since the belt is flexible.” Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds that “the term rigid is
relative and subjective in nature, so that for example, even a thin steel rod, though
having some rigidity would also have some flexibility.” Ans. 7 (emphasis added).
The Appellants argue that “[a] flexible belt can be flexible along its length,
but inflexible along its width due to a horizontal rod, etc. JP ‘683 fails to teach or
suggest a flexible rod and the examiner’s comments regarding a thin steel rod [i.e.,
a thin steel rod has some flexibility] are conjecture.” Reply Br. 3. Moreover, the
Appellants argue that Chmelir “requires essentially total flexibility to form and
straighten a trough, not merely ‘some’ arguable flexibility” and “flexibility across
the width of the belt [in JP 683] would be avoided to preclude imperfections in the
resulting corrugated product.” Reply Br. 3.
The Appellants’ arguments are persuasive of reversible error. To the extent
that JP 683 does not expressly describe the rod as rigid, the Examiner has not
directed us to any disclosure in JP 683 teaching that the rod is sufficiently flexible
to enable Chmelir’s flat belt (see Chmelir Figure 2A) to form into a deep trough
(see Chmelir Figure 2B) and subsequently revert to a flattened profile (see Chmelir
Figure 2D). In that regard, the Examiner does not address the Appellants’
argument that the rod of JP 683 is necessarily rigid to provide a flat sheet of
corrugated product.
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence does not support a
finding that the coupling bar or rod disclosed in JP 683 would have been suitable
for joining the ends of Chmelir’s endless conveyor belt. Therefore, the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 based on the combination of Chmelir and JP 683
is not sustained.
4
Appeal 2015-005550
Application 12/746,910
The Examiner does not rely on Westbrook to cure the deficiencies in
Chmelir and JP 683 in the rejection of claim l.6 Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection
of claim 9 also is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6 The Examiner finds Westbrook teaches that cured or vulcanized silicon
elastomers would be stable up to at least 140°C. Final 4.
5