Ex Parte Zine

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2012

12368494 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2012)

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.
12/368,494 02/10/2009 Rita Zine 545.189 1981
85444 7590 11/16/2012
Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC
4089 Emery Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
EXAMINER
PARSLEY, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte RITA ZINE
__________

Appeal 2011-013326
Application 12/368,494
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, STEPHEN WALSH, and ULRIKE W. JENKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WALSH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims directed to a pet bed. The Patent Examiner rejected the claims for
obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2011-013326
Application 12/368,494

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads
as follows:
1. A pet bed comprising a base, a plush pad within said base and sized to
support a pet thereon, a tubular member having one end affixed to said base
and a non-rigid side wall, said non-rigid side wall being extendable from
said base in a first orientation forming a tunnel from said plush pad and
collapsible in a second orientation creating a side wall to said base, and
wherein said tubular member further comprises a rigid hoop configured
within a second end thereof to maintain a tubular shape of said tubular
member.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
 claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fife1 and
Bins;2 and
 claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fife,
Bins, and Bramley3 or Jordan.4

OBVIOUSNESS
Appellant contends the rejection over Fife and Bins should be
reversed because “the combination of Fife and Bins fails to teach applicant’s
structure.” (App. Br. 5.) After considering the evidence and arguments of
record, we agree with Appellant. Specifically, claim 1 defines a tubular
member that creates a side wall to the base when collapsed. It does not
appear that the tubular portion of Fife’s pet bed, even if modified to

1 Lois A. Fife et al., US 5,000,116, issued March 19, 1991.
2 John G. Bins, US 2,032,248, issued Feb. 25, 1936.
3 Anthony Bramley, US 3,066,646, issued Dec. 4, 1962.
4 Elizabeth S. Jordan, US 5,226,384, issued July 13, 1993.
Appeal 2011-013326
Application 12/368,494

3
comprise Bins’ rigid hoop as the rejection proposed, can create a side wall to
the base when collapsed. (Id.) The rejection is reversed because it did not
account for that claim limitation. As the rejection of claims 2 and 4
incorporated the rejection of claim 1, it also is reversed.

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fife and Bins.
We reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fife, Bins, and Bramley or Jordan.

REVERSED

lp