Ex Parte Bolton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13424004 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/424,004 03/19/2012
3017 7590 06/20/2016
BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD,
101 DYER STREET
5THFLOOR
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alice Bolton
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.
N016 P02223-US1 9907
EXAMINER
PUROL, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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 ALICE BOLTON and CHRISTINE TRUCCHI
Appeal2014-006248
Application 13/424,0041
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Natco Home
Fashions, Inc." Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006248
Application 13/424,004
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 4,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
4. A drape system comprising, in combination:
a vertical blind system comprising:
a head rail; and
carrier slides supported by said head rail; and
vertical slats supported by said carrier slides
a drape comprising:
a textile panel having a top edge; and
a plurality of spaced apart button holes along said
top edge,
wherein vertical slats are removed from said vertical
blind system aid [sic] button holes are configured and arranged
to engage with said carrier slides that formerly supported said
vertical slats.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moir (US 6,334,477 Bl, iss. Jan. 1, 2002) and Stall
(US 3,157,907, iss. Nov. 24, 1964).
Claims 3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moir, Stall, and Constance (US 4,391,865, iss. July 5,
1983).
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as a group. Br. 6-8.
We select claim 4 as the representative claim, and claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8
stand or fall with claim 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Appellants argue that the present invention recites subject matter
that is not disclosed by the combined teachings of Moir and Stall. See Br. 7-
2
Appeal2014-006248
Application 13/424,004
8. The Appellants support this argument by asserting that "the present
invention is a combination of a specialty buttonhole drape that works in
conjunction with the existing carriers of a vertical blind system by simply
removing the slats and installing the drape," whereas Moir's carriers are
"specialty carriers" that must replace "existing carriers" before installing a
drape. See id. at 7. The Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
For the purposes of this appeal only, even if we were to consider
Moir's carrier slides (i.e., carriers 10 and glide 16) as "specialty carriers,"
such does not explain persuasively how the claimed "carrier slides" fail to
read on Moir's carrier slides 10, 16. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 5; see also Moir,
col. 3, 11. 43--49. Stated differently, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he
claims do not recite any structure of the carrier slides which would preclude
the carrier slides of Moir as constituting 'the existing carriers' as argued by
the [A]ppellants." Ans. 5. Moreover, the Examiner explains correctly that
the claim 1 does not preclude Moir' s carrier slides 10, 16 from being left in
place as the vertical slats (i.e., vanes 50) are removed and the curtain (i.e.,
curtain 42) is arranged to engage the carrier slides. Id. at 3; see id. at 4
(citing Moir, col. 4, 11. 47-52).
We have considered the Appellants' remaining arguments and
determine that they are not persuasive.
Therefore, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as
unpatentable over Moir and Stall is sustained.
The Appellants' argument for the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 6,
and 9 repeats the unpersuasive arguments discussed above. See Br. 8-9.
Additionally, the Appellants assert that the inclusion of Constance's
disclosure fails to "overcome the lack of disclosure in the base combination
3
Appeal2014-006248
Application 13/424,004
as noted above." Id. at 9. This assertion is not persuasive because the
Examiner's combination of Moir and Stall does not suffer from the alleged
error.
Therefore, the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 6, and 9 as
unpatentable over Moir, Stall, and Constance is sustained.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4