Annie Varghese-Abraham

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2019

14965611 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2019)

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.
14/965,611 12/10/2015 Annie VARGHESE-ABRAHAM JABRA.00002 2928
22858 7590 07/23/2019
CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP
P.O. Box 802334
DALLAS, TX 75380-2334
EXAMINER
DURHAM, NATHAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2019 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 ANNIE VARGHESE-ABRAHAM
____________

Appeal 2017-0118591
Application 14/965,6112
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS 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 1–11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 17,
2017), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 26, 2017), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 26, 2017), and the Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed Sept. 19, 2016).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Annie Varghese-
Abraham. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011859
Application 14/965,611

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates to a
clothing hanger, and more particularly a hanger that allows for compact
storage of garments and accessories in order to organize an outfit of
clothing.” Spec. ¶ 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A clothing hanger comprising:
a central hub portion;
a bar hook extending from the central hub portion, wherein
the bar hook defines a support cavity oriented in a first direction;
a first shoulder support member extending from the central
hub portion in a second direction;
a second shoulder support member extending from the
central hub portion in a third direction, wherein the second and
third directions are opposite one another;
a jewelry display tab extending from the central hub
portion opposite the bar hook, wherein the jewelry display tab
comprises two perforations, wherein each perforation comprises
a first diameter;
two necklace hooks, wherein one necklace hook extends
from the first shoulder support and another necklace hook
extends from the second shoulder support, wherein each
necklace hook defines a support cavity oriented in a fourth
direction, wherein the first direction and fourth direction are
opposite one another, wherein each necklace hook extends in a
direction opposite the bar hook and outward from a front face of
the clothing hanger, and wherein the two necklace hooks define
a plane that is approximately parallel with the front face.
Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2017-011859
Application 14/965,611

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Larson3 in view of Ruelas.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sklaar5 in view of Ruelas and Larson.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 8–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sklaar in view of Ruelas, Larson, and Verdile.6
DISCUSSION
Rejection over Larson in view of Ruelas
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Larson teaches a
hanger as claimed, except that Larson does not teach two necklace hooks.
Final Act. 2–3 (citing Larson Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner finds that Ruelas
teaches a clothes hanger with two hooks that are oriented as required by
claim 1, and the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Larson’s hanger to include hooks, as taught by Ruelas, in order to
hold additional items from the hanger. Id. at 3–4 (citing Ruelas Fig. 1).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion with
respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Larson in view of Ruelas. See Final
Act. 2–4; see also Ans. 2–7. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of
reversible error by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant first argues that adding hooks to Larson’s hanger would
render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 6. In support,

3 Larson, US 5,526,968, iss. June 18, 1996.
4 Ruelas, US 2008/0308511 A1, pub. Dec. 18, 2008.
5 Sklaar, US 2,543,810, iss. Mar. 6, 1951.
6 Verdile, US 3,790,044, iss. Feb. 5, 1974.
Appeal 2017-011859
Application 14/965,611

4
Appellant asserts that Larson teaches that the device should be
approximately the same size as a standard suit hanger so as to not take up
more closet space than a standard hanger and that the device should hold a
suit jacket with minimal distortion. Id. at 6–7 (citing Larson col. 1, ll. 26–
31; col. 2, ll. 8–9, 59–61). Appellant asserts that incorporating Ruelas’s
hooks into Larson’s device would frustrate these advantages of Larson’s
device.
We are not persuaded. We first note that the rejection does not appear
to rely on a bodily incorporation of the specific hook locations disclosed in
Ruelas. Rather, the rejection relies only on the shape of Ruelas’s hooks and
the general location of a hook on each of the hanger shoulders as taught by
Ruelas. Final Act. 3–4. Given the specific rejection before us, we do not
agree with Appellant that the asserted intended purposes of Larson would
necessarily be rendered unsatisfactory by the proposed combination of art.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner that hooks, as taught by Ruelas, could
be incorporated into Larson’s hanger such that they meet the claim language
and do not significantly change the overall length, width, or depth of
Larson’s hanger or cause any distortion to the suit jacket. Ans. 4. In making
the proposed combination, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that
the hooks could be placed on each of the shoulders of Larson’s hanger at a
location proximate the center of the hanger such that the device would not
take up significantly more space, would hold a suit jacket with minimal
distortion, and would provide the additional feature proposed by the
combination, i.e. hooks for holding additional garments or accessories.
Next, Appellant argues that Ruelas is not analogous art. Appeal
Br. 7–8. We are not persuaded and agree with the Examiner that Ruelas is in
Appeal 2017-011859
Application 14/965,611

5
the same field of endeavor as claimed invention. See Ans. 7. We find that
the claimed invention and Ruelas are each concerned with providing hangers
for storage of clothing items. The fact that Ruelas is more narrowly focused
on storing and organizing bras does not persuade us that Ruelas is in a
different field of endeavor.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 over
Larson in view of Ruelas. Because Appellant does not raise separate
arguments regarding claims 2 and 5–7, we sustain the rejection of those
claims for the same reasons.
Rejection over Sklaar in view of Ruelas and Larson
Here, the Examiner finds that Sklaar teaches a hanger as required by
claim 1, except that Sklaar does not teach necklace hooks or a jewelry
display tab as claimed. Final Act. 4–6 (citing Sklaar Fig. 1). However, the
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Sklaar to
include these features based on the teachings of Ruelas and Larson. Id. at 5–
6 (citing Ruelas Fig. 1; Larson Fig. 1).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion with
respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Sklaar in view of Ruelas and Larson.
See Final Act. 4–6; see also Ans. 7–9. As discussed below, we are not
persuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s arguments.
With respect to this rejection, Appellant first argues that the proposed
combination would render Sklaar’s hanger unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant asserts that Sklaar is
concerned with providing a smooth, rounded supporting surfaces on the
hanger portions of the device. Id. (citing Sklaar col. 2, ll. 1–9, 37–40).
Appellant asserts that adding hooks to Sklaar’s hanger arms would frustrate
Appeal 2017-011859
Application 14/965,611

6
this purpose. Id. at 9. We are not persuaded of error. Even were we to
agree that providing smooth, rounded supporting surfaces was an intended
purpose of Sklaar’s device, we do not agree that this purpose would be
defeated by the addition of hooks as proposed by the Examiner. Our
analysis here is substantially similar to the analysis above with respect to the
combination of Larson and Ruelas. Specifically, the rejection here does not
rely on the specific location of hooks in Ruelas, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that hooks could be placed on Sklaar’s device
so that a garment may still be draped at its shoulders on a smooth, rounded
support surface while providing the additional feature of the hooks. See
Ans. 8.
Appellant also argues that “Sklaar teaches away from substituting in
the hooks of Ruelas” because Sklaar teaches hooks 55 that converge
inwardly, which “is the exact opposite of Appellant’s claimed invention.”
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant does not explain adequately why the mere presence
of hooks 55 in Sklaar’s device shows that Sklaar teaches away from the
addition of hooks as claimed. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not
teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention.”).
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 over
Sklaar in view of Ruelas and Larson. Because Appellant does not raise
separate arguments regarding the rejection of claims 2–4, we sustain the
rejection of those claims for the same reason.
Appeal 2017-011859
Application 14/965,611

7
Rejection over Sklaar in view of Ruelas, Larson, and Verdile
Appellant argues only that “[c]laims 8-11 are non-obvious, at a
minimum, by virtue of their dependence on the novel and non-obvious
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9. As discussed, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments regarding the rejections of claim 1, and thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 8–11 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED