AIRBOSS ENGINEERED PRODUCTS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2020

14772497 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2020)

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.
14/772,497 09/03/2015 Jill VANDENBOSCH 513-140 8527
144465 7590 06/18/2020
Tanner IP, PLLC
13057 Champlain Drive
Manassas, VA 20112
EXAMINER
ANNIS, KHALED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2020 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):
dan@tannerip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
james@tannerip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JILL VANDENBOSCH, JEAN-FRANCOIS MORISSETTE,
JEAN-LUC LEMYRE, LUC DIONNE, and ALEXANDRE MEUNIER
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 24–38, 46–49, 52, 53, and 75–87.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing with the

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AIRBOSS
ENGINEERED PRODUCTS INC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

2
Appellant’s representative was conducted via telephone on June 4, 2020, a
transcript of which will be entered into the record in due course.
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to personal protective equipment. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A protective glove for protecting a wearer against
noxious agents, the protective glove comprising:
a hand covering for receiving a hand of the wearer, the
hand covering comprising a palm portion for facing a palm of
the wearer’s hand, a back portion for facing a back of the
wearer’s hand, finger portions for receiving fingers of the
wearer’s hand, and a thumb portion for receiving a thumb of the
wearer’s hand; and
a cuff for receiving a wrist of the wearer and extending
towards a forearm of the wearer;
wherein:
a plurality of regions of the protective glove have
different properties and are disposed to cover different parts of
at least one of the wearer’s hand, wrist and forearm;
each of the regions of the protective glove provides a
level of protection against noxious agents;
the level of protection against noxious agents of
relatively more protective ones of the regions of the protective
glove is greater than the level of protection against noxious
agents of relatively less protective ones of the regions of the
protective glove; and
the relatively less protective ones of the regions of the
protective glove are non-contiguous and spaced apart from one
another by the relatively more protective ones of the regions of
the protective glove.
Appeal Br. 22, Claims App. (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 24, 37, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mattesky (US 2009/0126074 A1,
published May 21, 2009). Final Act. 3.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 25–36, 46–49, 52, 53, 75–83, and
872 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mattesky. Final
Act. 6.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 84–86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mattesky in view of Bohringer et al. (US
2007/0181001 A1, published Aug. 9, 2007). Final Act. 23.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Anticipated by Mattesky
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 24, 37, and 38 as being anticipated
by Mattesky. Final Act. 3. As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds
that Mattesky discloses a protective glove having a plurality of regions that
have different properties, wherein “the relatively less protective ones of the
regions of the protective glove are noncontiguous and spaced apart from one
another by the relatively more protective ones of the regions of the
protective glove” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. To explain the
rejection, the Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 6 of
Mattesky as reproduced below:

22 The heading of this rejection omits claim 87 but the body of the Final
Action indicates that claim 87 is subject to this rejection as well. See Final
Act. 23.
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

4

Ans. 5.
The illustration reproduced above is the Examiner-annotated version
of Figure 6 of Mattesky, which shows a top plan view of a palm side of a
glove with its outer coating layer removed, and having the annotations “Z1”
and “Z2” with corresponding arrows pointing to the small finger and the
thenar regions of the glove. See id. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner
asserts that a dictionary definition of “non-contiguous” is “not next to each
other.” Ans. 3, citing www.Onelook.com. As such, referring to the
annotated version of Figure 6 of Mattesky, the Examiner explains that “Z1
and Z2 are non-contiguous and spaced apart from each other by (14’) which
extends laterally along the entire palm portion of the glove.” Ans. 4.
The Appellant disagrees and argues that Mattesky fails to disclose that
“the ‘shell or substrate 12’ includes relatively less protective regions of the
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

5
protective glove that are non-contiguous and spaced apart from one another
by relatively more protective regions of the protective glove, as recited in
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9. The Appellant argues that in view of the
Specification and Figure 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “non-
contiguous” is “‘islands’ or regions that are ‘isolated from one another.’”
Reply Br. 2, citing Spec. pg. 26, ll. 17–20; see also Reply Br. 3 (identifying
ten instances in which the terms “island” or “islands” are used, and three
instances in which “isolated from one another” is used). The Appellant
argues that its interpretation “uses the term ‘non-contiguous’ just as it is
commonly understood,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the meaning of “non-contiguous” based on the intrinsic record,
and not based on extrinsic evidence such as a dictionary. Reply Br. 3–4. In
addition, the Appellant further argues that none of the dictionaries provided
in Onelook.com for the terms “non-contiguous” or “contiguous” supports
the asserted definition of “not next to each other” for “non-contiguous” or
Reply Br. 4–6.
We generally agree with the Appellant. First, it is problematic that
although the Examiner asserts a dictionary definition, the Examiner does not
identify the dictionary from which the definition is derived. Second, we
agree with the Appellant that in view of the Specification, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the limitation at issue to refer
to a spatial separation of the less protective regions such that they are
“isolated from one another,” and on their own (i.e., an “island”), without
connection to each other by the same less protective material. Reply Br. 7;
see also Reply Br. 2–3.
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

6
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Figure 6 of Mattesky
demonstrates “Z1” and “Z2” that “are non-contiguous and spaced apart from
each other” is not based on a reasonable interpretation of “non-contiguous.”
Ans. 4. The mere fact that these points are not positioned next to each other
does not establish that they are non-contiguous. In that regard, the
Examiner’s interpretation of “not next to each other,” appears to be
superfluous to the claimed recitation that the relatively less protective ones
of the regions are “spaced apart,” such that this interpretation would render
the limitation “non-contiguous” essentially meaningless. Ans. 3.
Thus, we agree with the Appellant that the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 based on Mattesky is deficient because “one can easily trace a line
around reinforcing element 14 going from Z1 to Z2, indicating that Z1 and
Z2: (1) share a border, (2) are not ‘islands’ with respect to each other, and
(3) are not isolated from one another.” Reply Br. 6–7. Although the
annotated Figure 6 illustrates Z1 to be seemingly isolated from Z2, in reality,
the shell 12 of Mattesky is a unitary substrate that forms the underlying layer
of the glove such that although not shown in Figure 6, the shell 12 also
forms the back side of the glove such that Z1 and Z2 are not isolated from
one another. See Mattesky Fig. 5, ¶ 15.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse the
Examiner’s anticipation of rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 24, 37, and 38,
also rejected, ultimately depend from claim 1, and thus, we reverse the
rejection of these claims as well. The remaining issues pertaining to this
rejection, and arguments specifically directed to dependent claims 37 and 38
are moot. See Appeal Br. 12.

Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

7
Rejection 2: Obvious Over Mattesky
The Examiner rejects claims 25–36, 46–49, 52, 53, and 75–83 as
being unpatentable over Mattesky. Final Act. 6. Preliminarily, we note that
claims 25–36 and 75–83 ultimately depend from independent claim 1. The
Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims does not address the above-
noted deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 7–10, 19–23. Thus,
the rejection of claims 25–36 and 75–83 is reversed. We address the
rejections of independent claims 46, 47, 52, and 53 in detail infra.

Claim 46
Claim 46 recites, inter alia, “respective ones of the second subset of
the regions of the protective glove are non-contiguous and spaced apart from
one another by respective ones of the first subset of the regions of the
protective glove.” Appeal Br. 26, Claims App. In rejecting the claim, the
Examiner finds that Mattesky discloses the above noted limitation. Final
Act. 10–12. Thus, the dispositive issue as to independent claim 46 is
substantively identical to the claim interpretation issue and fact finding
addressed above relative to claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
above, we reverse this rejection of claim 46 as well.

Claims 47 and 52
Claims 47 and 52 each recites, inter alia, that “the first material
includes a part that overlays the second material and a part that does not
overlay the second material, and the second material includes a part that is
overlaid by the first material and a part that is not overlaid by the first
material.” Appeal Br. 26, 27, Claims App. In rejecting the claim, the
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

8
Examiner finds that Mattesky discloses the above noted limitation. Final
Act. 12. To explain, the Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 4
of Mattesky as reproduced below:

Ans. 6.
The illustration reproduced above is the Examiner’s annotated version
of Figure 4 of Mattesky, which shows a sectional view of the glove with,
inter alia, the shell 12 annotated as “First material,” and the coating layer 16
annotated as “Second material.” According to the Examiner, Figure 4 of
Mattesky,
illustrates that the first material (See Fig. 4 []) includes a part or
portion (R1) that overlays the second material (See Fig. 4) and
a part (R2) that does not overlay the second material (See Fig.
4) because they are separated by layer (14), and the second
material (See Fig. 4) includes a part (R3) that is overlaid by the
first material and a part (R4) that is not overlaid by the first
material.
Ans. 6.
The Appellant disagrees and argues that Mattesky does not disclose
the above noted limitation. Appeal Br. 13, 16. We generally agree with the
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

9
Appellant and find the Examiner’s rejection unsustainable. In particular, the
Examiner’s rejection asserts that the shell 12 (i.e., the first material) includes
a part that overlays the coating layer 16 (i.e., the second material), and that
the coating layer 16 includes a part that is overlaid by the shell 12 and a part
that is not overlaid by the shell. See Ans. 6. However, protective gloves
such as that disclosed in Mattesky are worn with the protective layers as the
outer surface of the glove. Accordingly, Mattesky discloses the shell 12
(i.e., the first layer) includes a part that underlays the coating layer 16 (i.e.,
the second layer). Thus, the Examiner’s finding is premised on an
unreasonably broad interpretation of “overlay” to mean the opposite.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 47 and
52, as well as of claims 48 and 49 that ultimately depend from claim 47.

Claim 53
Claim 53 recites, inter alia, “the membranous material includes a part
that overlays the fibrous material and a part that does not overlay the fibrous
material.” Appeal Br. 27–28, Claims App. Thus, although the language of
claim 53 differs from claims 47 and 52 in that it identifies the various
materials (i.e., “membranous material” and “fibrous material”), the
Examiner’s rejection is based on the same overly broad interpretation of the
term “overlay” discussed above relative to claims 47 and 52. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection of claim 53.

Rejection 3: Obvious Over Mattesky and Bohringer
Claims 84–86 ultimately depend from independent claim 1. Appeal
Br. 29, Claims App. The Examiner rejects these claims as unpatentable over
Appeal 2019-003219
Application 14/772,497

10
Mattesky in view of Bohringer, finding that Mattesky fails to disclose
activated carbon particles. Final Act. 23. The Examiner relies on Bohringer
for disclosing a protective glove made from a material that comprises
activated carbon particles. Final Act. 24. However, the Examiner’s reliance
on Bohringer does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, this rejection is also reversed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 24, 37,
38
102(b) Mattesky 1–3, 24, 37,
38
25–36, 46–
49, 52, 53,
75–83, 87
103(a) Mattesky 25–36, 46–
49, 52, 53,
75–83, 87
84–86 103(a) Mattesky,
Bohringer
84–86
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 24–38,
46–49, 52,
53, and 75–
87

REVERSED