Ex Parte Bassouls et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 2, 2018

13972257 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/972,257 08/21/2013
151971 7590 10/04/2018
Forge IP, PLLC
1077 Bridgeport Ave
Suite 301
Shelton, CT 06484
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pierre-Henry Bassouls
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
05557-P0002A 4485
EXAMINER
KIM, SHINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2018 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):
patent@forge-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERRE-HENRY BASSOULS,
JEAN-PHILIPPE DELMOTTE, and ERIC BIRR
Appeal2017-000694
Application 13/972,257
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1--4 and 12-14 as being unpatentable over Frey
(US 8,015,736 B2, iss. Sept. 13, 2011). Claims 5-11 have been objected to.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on
September 26, 2018.
We reverse.
Appeal2017-000694
Application 13/972,257
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a communicating board, such as an
advertising display or poster. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 13 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A communicating board comprising:
• a display medium being totally formed by a sheet of
fabric, said sheet of fabric comprising, on at least one surface,
loops adapted to cooperate with a gripping strip provided with
hooks, said loops being integral parts of the sheet of fabric;
• at least one first gripping strip provided with hooks
enabling to hold in position said display medium;
• at least one substantially rectilinear profile, comprising a
first planar connecting surface having said at least one first
gripping strip provided with hooks positioned thereon;
characterized in that said first planar connecting surface is
inclined towards a rear surface of the display medium when the
latter cooperates with said at least one first gripping strip
provided with hooks, said first planar connecting surface forming
with a visible planar surface of the display medium an angle a
greater than 3 0°.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on the combination of two different embodiments
of display systems (Figs. 8 and 9) in Frey to suggest all of the features of
independent claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner applies a similar
analysis to independent claim 13. Id. at 4--5. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Frey Figure 8 uses hook and loop fasteners (Element 68) (i.e.,
VELCRO®) to attach display material to a frame, while Figure 9 uses "a
mounting means (Element 66) inserted into the groove of the rectilinear
frame support structure" to attach display material to the frame. Id. at 6; see
also id. at 3. The Examiner determines that the two different types of
2
Appeal2017-000694
Application 13/972,257
attachment systems are well known alternatives. Id. at 3, 6. The Examiner
further determines that as such, "[i]t would be obvious to apply the disclosed
hook and loop fastener to the groove as disclosed in Figure 9." Id. at 6; see
also id. at 3 ("It would be obvious to apply the hook and loop fasteners
(Element 68) in the securing structure of Figure 9. ").
Appellants argue that such a modification "would render the prior art .
. . unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 13. Appellants
explain:
Positioning the mounting means ( 66) inserted into a groove of
the rectilinear frame support structure (Figure 9) requires a
translation movement into the groove. It is well known to the
skilled person that a hook and loop fastening means opposes
translation movements. If the skilled person places a hook and
loop fastening means on one side of the groove of the rectilinear
frame support structure (Figure 9), it would be very difficult, if
not impossible, to insert a display into the groove.
Id. at 15.
The Examiner responds that "[t]he dimension of the channel is easily
modified to provide a void that is large enough to facilitate the translation
movements of attaching and detaching hook and loop fasteners." Ans. 3; see
also Non-Final Act. 7.
The Examiner does not provide any reason why one of skill in the art
would modify Frey's frame to increase the size of the void 80, when the
frame already provides for hook and loop fasteners. Such a modification
would decrease the area Frey teaches to use for the hook and loop fasteners.
Further, the purpose of the void 80 is to provide for press-fit attachment of
the display material using element 66. It is unclear why one of skill would
change the frame in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Thus, the
Examiner's reasoning appears to be driven by hindsight.
3
Appeal2017-000694
Application 13/972,257
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's position that the size of the
void can be increased
ignores the realities of what one skilled in the art is trying to
achieve - i.e., a taught [sic, taut] display surface without wrinkles
and the like. While it is true that one could make the grooves of
Frey wider and make the display surface larger so that the hooks
and loops would not contact each other while the edges of the
display were being inserted translationally into the widened
grooves, once the hooks and loops were brought into
engagement, the display would be loose and prone to wrinkling.
Again, this combination/modification would change the
principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified
and lead to a device that is unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose.
Appeal Br. 16-17.
The Examiner does not respond to this argument. See generally Ans.;
see also Reply Br. 2--4.
We acknowledge that Frey teaches that hook and loop fasteners and
"a mounting means (Element 66) inserted into the groove of the rectilinear
frame support structure" are interchangeable methods to attach display
material to a frame. However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reason why one of skill in the art would modify the groove 80 to use hook
and loop fasteners within the groove. Nor has the Examiner addressed the
drawbacks with such a solution, which appear counter to the teachings of
Frey.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13, or the rejection of the dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 12-14 is reversed.
4
Appeal2017-000694
Application 13/972,257
REVERSED
5