Ex Parte Grilliot et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201711796883 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/796,883 04/30/2007 William L. Grilliot H28476-MOR03334P02480US 5062 93730 7590 06/26/2017 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER HADEN, SALLY CLINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 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): ksanderson@woodphillips.com patentservices-us @ honey well, com docketing @ woodphillips .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM L. GRILLIOT and MARY I. GRILLIOT Appeal 2015-0051831 Application 11/796,8832 Technology Center 3700 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—18 and 20-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 16, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 6, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 5, 2015) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 16, 2014). 2 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Morning Pride Manufacturing, L.L.C. and Honeywell International, L.L.C. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 BACKGROUND The Specification “relates to a protective glove for a firefighter, an emergency worker, or other first responder, wherein the glove is constructed to allow improved flexing of a user’s hands/fmgers.” Spec. 14. CLAIMS Claims 1—18 and 20-26 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A protective glove for a firefighter or emergency worker, the protective glove comprising: a palm face adapted to cover a palm side of a hand and fingers; and a back face adapted to cover a back side of a hand and fingers, the back face including at least one seam located to overlay a knuckle joint in the hand, the at least one seam defined by two cut edges facing a common direction, each edge having a convex crescent shape that is aligned with the convex crescent shape of the other edge to face the common direction, the two cut edges being joined to and abutting each other along the convex crescent shape of the edges and defining the majority of the at least one seam. Appeal Br. 14. REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Son.4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 10, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Son in view of Kleinert.5 3 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112 have been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 4 Son, US 7,841,024 B2, iss. Nov. 30, 2010. 5 Kleinert, US 2002/0013961 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2002. 2 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 DISCUSSION Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 20—23, 25, and 26 Appellants argue claims 1—6 and 21—26 as a group. See Appeal Br. 7. We address claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 20- 23, 25, and 26 stand or fall with claim 1. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Son discloses a protective glove as claimed except that “Son does not expressly disclose the two cut edges defining the majority of the at least one seam.” Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner finds that modifying Son to include two cut edges defining the majority of a seam would have been obvious in light of Son’s disclosure of other seams that include cut edges over the majority of the seam such as where two portions of the finger parts of the palm side of the glove are made from two different materials. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use cut seams on the back face of the glove as claimed “for the purpose of providing two different materials for different portions of the glove where different properties would be desirable.” Id. Further, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that Son teaches cut edges on the back face of the glove “defining various lengths of their respective seams” and embodiments having “deeper v-shaped cuts.” Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner finds that: it is believed to be within the scope of the Son reference to provide cut edges that define more or less of the seam, and that to extend the cut edges . . . such that the cut edges define the majority of the . . . seam would be a matter of obviousness. Id. Finally, the Examiner finds that extending the cut edges “would still leave the tucks or folds intact and would not destroy the Son reference.” Id. 3 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but for the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error. Appellants argue that the proposed modification of Son “is improper because it would require a complete reconstruction and redesign of the critical elements of Son, which critical elements are the fold in a one piece pattern forming the back side of a glove.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants assert that Son is directed to forming a glove using folds and tucks in a one piece side of a glove and using multiple pieces, as the rejection requires, would require “additional manufacturing steps and mak[e] the formation of a fold according to Son’s inventive concept impractical or impossible.” Id. We disagree. Beyond the additional manufacturing step of forming seams between two materials, as would be required by the proposed modification to Son, Appellants do not point to any specific reason why the proposed modification would require a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son’s critical parts. In particular, Appellants point to no reason why Son’s inventive concept is “impractical or impossible” by forming the glove from multiple pieces. Rather, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the configuration of a one-piece glove back as shown in Son’s Figure 1 could be formed of multiple cut pieces and then tucked and/or folded as described in Son. Appellants do not explain adequately why the additional manufacturing step of joining two materials to form the configuration in Figure 1 would require a complete reconstruction or redesign of Son’s glove or would otherwise defeat any purpose of Son’s glove, including providing a glove that has “a more natural finger curvature.” See Son, Abstract; see also Appeal Br. 8. 4 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 Finally, we disagree with Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner presents a new rationale for the rejection in the Answer. See Reply Br. 2. Rather, the Examiner finds that there is additional support for finding the claimed invention obvious over Son alone. See Ans. 2—3. Regardless, as discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error in the rejection as stated in the Final Action. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 20—23, 25, and 26, which fall with claim 1, as noted above. Claim 7—9, 11, and 12 Appellants group claims 7—9, 11, and 12 together. See Appeal Br. 9. We address claim 7 below, and claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 stand or fall with claim 7. With respect to claim 7, the Examiner finds that Son discloses a protective glove including a palm face and a back face as claimed. Final Act. 7—8. Regarding the limitation “convex crescent shaped edges facing inwardly toward a portion of the palm face directly opposite the at least one seam in the finger,” the Examiner states “[a]s best understood, the two aligned convex crescent shaped edges . . . [face] inwardly toward a portion of the palm face directly opposite the at least one seam in the finger.” Id. at 7 (citing Son Figure 1 (“dashed lines shown in fig 1”)). We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claim 7. In particular, we find that the Examiner’s speculation regarding the orientation of the convex crescent shaped edges within the glove is not sufficient to support an obviousness rejection without further explanation as to why the edges are oriented as claimed or why it would have been obvious 5 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 to modify Son’s device to orient the edges as claimed. We agree with Appellants that the likely orientation of the edges of each fold/tuck would be along the length of the fingers and not facing the portion of the palm face of the glove directly opposite the fold/tuck. See Reply Br. 3^4. Accordingly, we are persuaded of reversible error, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 for the same reasons. Claims 13—15, 17, and 18 Appellants group claims 13—15, 17, and 18 together. See Appeal Br. 10. We address claim 13 below, and claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 stand or fall with claim 13. With respect to claim 13, the Examiner finds that Son discloses a protective glove including a palm face and back face as claimed. Final Act. 9—10. With respect to the claimed “bubble space,” the Examiner asserts that “the recitation ‘bubble space’ is not a structural limitation. For the purpose of examination, a ‘bubble space’ is considered to be the interior of the glove.” Id. at 10. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s positions that the bubble space is not a structural limitation and that bubble space is considered to be the interior of the glove are unsupportable, “particularly in [light] of the express definition” of bubble space in the Specification. Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Spec. H28—29). These portions of the Specification recite: The glove 10 includes a plurality of seams 22, 24 and 26, each seam 22, 24 and 26 defining a corresponding bubble space 32, 34 and 36 that overlays one of the knuckle joints in the hand. More specifically, the seam 22 is sized and located to extend and define the buddle [sic] space 32 over all four of the base knuckle joints (metacarpophalangeal joints (MCP joints)) of the fingers 6 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 of the hand, excluding the thumb. Each of the seams 24 is located in the glove to define the corresponding bubble space 34 over a corresponding one of the middle knuckle joints of the fingers (proximal interphalangeal joints (PIP joint)), and each of the seams 26 is located to define the corresponding bubble space 36 over one of the end knuckle joints (distal interphalangeal joints (DIP joint)) of the fingers. Each of the bubble spaces 32, 34 and 36 provides an open area into which the corresponding knuckle joint can extend during flexing, such as shown in Fig. 3, so as to minimize fighting or stretching of the material of the back face 14 and/or compression of any insulation layer that may be provided within the outer shell of the glove 10. Spec. 28—29. Thus, the Specification defines a bubble space as an open area into which a corresponding knuckle can extend during flexing. Even under this definition of bubble space, we agree with the Examiner that Son includes a bubble space as claimed. First, we agree with the Examiner that the presence of space for a knuckle joint to extend into is at least partially dependent on the user of the glove. Second, because we agreed with Appellants’ above regarding the likely orientation of the folds/tucks located at the knuckle joints in Son’s gloves, we find, and Appellants appear to acknowledge, that Son’s glove likely includes space at the knuckle joints into which a knuckle may extend. In this regard, Appellants provide an illustration of the “cross section of folds/tucks that must result from the tucks/folds disclosed in Son.” Appeal Br. 3. 7 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 Appellant provides a copy of Son’s Figure 8 showing the distal portion of a finger of Son’s glove as well as Appellant’s own illustration of the cross section of a joint of Son’s glove. Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants’ illustration of what “must” be the cross section of Son’s glove shows a space at the knuckle joint to the right of the stitching that may be considered a bubble space under the definition provided in the Specification. For these reasons, we find that the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 13 is obvious over Son is supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and we also sustain the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, and 18, which fall with claim 13 as noted above. Claims 4, 10, 16, and 24 With respect to the rejection over Son in view of Kleinert, Appellants assert only that Kleinert does not overcome the alleged deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 12—13. Having found no such deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1,13, and 21, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 16, and 24 for the reasons set forth above. However, with respect to claim 10, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Kleinert overcomes the deficiency in the rejection of claim 7 discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. 8 Appeal 2015-005183 Application 11/796,883 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—6, 13—18, and 20—26, and we REVERSE the rejections of claims 7—12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation