HIGHCON SYSTEMS LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 2021

2020004688 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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. 14/427,022 03/10/2015 Michael Zimmer Q217986 7221 23373 7590 03/18/2021 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com sughrue@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL ZIMMER ____________________ Appeal 2020-004688 Application 14/427,022 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Decision rejecting claims 1 and 3–7. Claims 17–25 are withdrawn, and claims 2 and 8–16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Highcon Systems Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004688 Application 14/427,022 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a cardboard pretreatment system. Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. A cardboard pretreatment system comprising: a creasing module for creating at least one crease on a cardboard, along at least one line; and a processing module for processing the cardboard along the at least one line; and wherein, the processing module is a laser module configured to direct a laser beam toward the cardboard along the at least one line; and wherein the creasing module is configured to create the at least one crease to reduce the thickness of the cardboard along said at least one line prior to exposure to the laser beam of the processing module. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-David (US 2013/0292226 A1, published Nov. 7, 2013) in view of Bucklew (US 8,785,811 B2, issued July 22, 2014). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Ben-David discloses a cardboard pre- treatment system that includes a creasing module as claimed, and a laser module configured to direct a laser beam toward a cardboard, but is silent with respect to the laser module being configured to direct the laser beam toward the at least one line creased by the creasing module. Final Act. 2. The Examiner cites to Bucklew as disclosing a similar system using a laser Appeal 2020-004688 Application 14/427,022 3 beam “to cut along preprocessed line” 120b, to create line 120a. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Ben-David such that the laser beam for processing the cardboard would be directed along the same creased line. Id. at 3. The Examiner takes the position that this is suggested by Bucklew, and would be done “in order to come up with an efficient laser processing of the moving web. Id. (citing Bucklew, col. 1, ll. 50–55). Appellant reiterates the Examiner’s finding that, although Ben-David discloses the creasing of cardboard, it does not disclose directing a laser along any crease line formed. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s findings relative to Bucklew, specifically arguing that Bucklew does not disclose applying a laser beam to cut along a preprocessed line or portion, let alone a preprocessed line or portion that is a crease. Id. at 10. Appellant submits that neither Ben-David nor Bucklew discloses applying a laser beam to any creased portion of packaging. Id. Appellant relatedly maintains that element 120b of Bucklew is incorrectly characterized by the Examiner as a “preprocessed line,” whereas Bucklew employs the descriptor “yet-to-be-processed” in identifying slit 120b. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that the dotted lines appearing on the film in Figure 2 of Bucklew, and designated as the “yet-to-be-processed” slits 120b, are not processed or preformed lines, as the Examiner infers, and points out that there is no disclosure that any processing has been applied to these regions, let alone the forming of a crease. Id.; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner responds that Bucklew discloses a “laser beam applied over pre-creased line 120b to come up with final/sharper line 120a,” and “clearly suggest[s] the formation of a pre-crease line (Fig. 2; via 120b; Appeal 2020-004688 Application 14/427,022 4 column 5, line 67, ‘provide a score or cut in the web”, and further on column 6, line 5; ‘form another discreet [sic] score or cut’).” Ans. 4. The Examiner takes the position that this disclosure establishes that Bucklew applies 120b as an initial score line formed on the web, and that the laser beam is used to finalize the scoring process at 120a, and that two different processes are applied to the moving web, via 120b and 120a. Id. The Examiner misunderstands the subject matter disclosed by Bucklew. The Examiner’s reference to element 120b as a “preprocessed line” or a “pre-crease line,” implying that the film is processed in some way in the region identified as 120b in the figures in Bucklew, is in stark contrast to Bucklew’s description of that region as a “yet-to-be-processed” slit, connoting that no processing is performed at that point. The Examiner’s citation to portions of columns 5 and 6 of Bucklew is also misplaced. The passages relied on are limitations appearing in claim 1 of Bucklew. The recited formation of a score or cut, followed by the recitation of the formation of another discrete score or cut, plainly evidences that two different, discrete scores or cuts are formed, and not a “pre-score” or “pre- cut” followed by a finishing score or cut at the same position on the film. Indeed, the claim language that follows further confirms this (if such confirmation is even needed), in reciting “repeating the step of repositioning [which preceded the ‘another’ cut] to form a plurality of discreet [sic] scores or cuts in the web.” As such, the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness is not supported by rational underpinnings found in the references of record, in that the Examiner misinterprets that which Bucklew discloses. Accordingly, the Appeal 2020-004688 Application 14/427,022 5 rejection of claims 1 and 3–7 as being unpatentable over Ben-David and Bucklew is not sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-David in view of Bucklew is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7 103(a) Ben-David, Bucklew 1, 3–7 REVERSED