Ex Parte Zoeckler

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 27, 2012

11620918 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL D. ZOECKLER ____________________ Appeal 2010-008907 Application 11/620,918 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008907 Application 11/620,918 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael D. Zoeckler (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 14-31. Specifically, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 14-21, 24, 25, and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walsh ‘871 (US 5,746,871, iss. May 5, 1998) or Walsh ‘488 (US 6,332,488 B1, iss. Dec. 25, 2001) in view of Blake (US 5,242,720, iss. Sep. 7, 1993). The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 19-21, 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walsh ‘871 or Walsh ‘488 in view of Schneberger (US 5,736,470, iss. Apr. 7, 1998). The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 11, 22, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walsh ‘871 or Walsh ‘488 in view of Blake and Wandel (US 3,741,859, iss. Jun. 26, 1973). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on November 15, 2012. We REVERSE. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.1 1. A method comprising the steps of: (a) advancing a web of paperboard along a first path, the web of paperboard having a width; (b) advancing a plurality of ribbons of reinforcing material along a second path, the ribbons each having a width less than the width of the web of paperboard; (c) progressively altering at least one ribbon of the plurality of ribbons of reinforcing material to form a pattern in the at least one ribbon of reinforcing 1 Independent claim 19 differs from claim 1 in that it additionally recites that the pattern comprises an array of perforations “covering substantially the entire surface of” the at least one altered ribbon. Appeal 2010-008907 Application 11/620,918 3 material that enhances adhesion of the at least one altered ribbon to the web of paperboard; the pattern comprising an array of perforations in the at least one altered ribbon of reinforcing material; and (d) progressively laminating the plurality of ribbons of reinforcing material to the web of paperboard at predetermined locations across the width of the web. OPINION All of the Examiner’s rejections are predicated in part on the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to perforate the ribbons of reinforcement material of either Walsh ‘871 or Walsh ‘488, in view of the teachings of either Blake or Schneberger. Ans. 3-5. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4-5. As pointed out by Appellant, Walsh ‘871 and Walsh ‘488 adhere the plurality of ribbons (strips 6 of Walsh ‘871 and strips 124, 126, 128 or strips 236, 238, 240 of Walsh ‘488) and the paperboard web to a continuous web of flexible material, but explicitly do not adhere the ribbons to the paperboard. See App. Br. 5, 9-10; Reply Br. 3-4; Walsh ‘871, col. 3, ll. 1- 13; Walsh ‘488, col. 9, ll. 38-41 (stating that the narrow strips 124, 126, 128 “are not secured to the relatively rigid material 90”); Walsh ‘488, col. 11, ll. 12-15 (stating that the laminating rolls “secure together the adhesive coated portions of the continuous [rigid strip] 206 and, when used, the continuous strips 236, 238 and 240 to portions of the continuous [flexible] strip 252”). The ribbons of Walsh ‘871 and Walsh ‘488 serve as spacers between the rigid paperboard web and the continuous web of flexible material to prevent the paperboard web from being adhered to the web of flexible material in certain regions. See Walsh ‘871, fig. 3 (depicting inserted strips 6), fig. 4 Appeal 2010-008907 Application 11/620,918 4 (depicting spaces in lieu of strips 6); Walsh ‘871, col. 3, ll. 36-41 (explaining that if strips 6 are not inserted, the gravure roll provides for two continuous spaced apart rows of adhesive material, as shown in fig. 4); Walsh ‘488, figs. 5, 6; Walsh ‘488, col. 11, ll. 5-7, 15-19 (explaining that the carton blanks can be formed either with inserted strips 236, 238, 240 or with the adhesive pattern of fig. 6, which comprises spaced rows of adhesive material). If the ribbons of either Walsh ‘871 or Walsh ‘488 were perforated as proposed by the Examiner, the perforations would permit adhesive to pass therethrough and cause the paperboard to adhere to the strips, thereby “negating the purpose for which the strips/ribbons were provided.” Reply Br. 5. Consequently, the Examiner’s proposed modification would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 14-31 is reversed. REVERSED hh