Ex Parte Chu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

14339936 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
14/339,936 07/24/2014 Donald L. Chu TRX-14 1327
47728 7590 10/23/2017
THOMAS J. GERMINARIO, ESQ.
154 ROUTE 206
CHESTER, NJ 07930
EXAMINER
KUMAR, RAKESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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 DONALD L. CHU
Appeal 2017-003199
Application 14/339,9361
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—7, all claims pending in the
application. Claims Appx. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Tronex International Incorporated, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 7, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed December 28, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
December 9, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed February 24, 2016,
“Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed July 24, 2014, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2017-003199
Application 14/339,936
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The claim relates to a method of packing and dispensing three-
dimensional disposable elastomeric gloves. See Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, which is reproduced below with
disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added:
1. A method of packaging and dispensing disposable
gloves, comprising the following steps:
(a) fabricating each of the disposable gloves by dipping a
hand-shaped mold into a liquid resin of an elastomeric material,
curing the resin on the mold, and then peeling off the glove,
such that each glove has a three-dimensional form;
(b) counting or weighing groups of the gloves so as to
constitute multiple bag allotments, wherein each bag allotment
contains a specified number of gloves, all of one specified
material, size and thickness;
(c) stacking the gloves of each bag allotment one on top
of another, so as to constitute a bag allotment stack, wherein
each bag allotment stack comprises a top glove, a bottom glove,
and multiple successive gloves between the top glove and the
bottom glove, and wherein the stacking of the gloves of each
bag allotment on top of one another is performed so that each
successive glove has a random orientation with respect to the
gloves above it and the gloves below it in the bag allotment
stack;
(d) enclosing each bag allotment stack within a glove
bag, wherein each glove bag comprises a flexible sheet or film
of plastic defining an interior bag space, and wherein the
interior bag space is accessible through one or more bag slits,
which comprise narrow oblong openings, and wherein, within
each glove bag, each successive glove has a random orientation
with respect to the gloves above it and the gloves below it in the
bag allotment stack;
(e) placing each glove bag within a dispenser box,
wherein each dispenser box comprises four or more
2
Appeal 2017-003199
Application 14/339,936
substantially rectangular, rigid dispenser walls defining an
interior dispenser space, and wherein the interior dispenser
space is accessible through one or more box apertures in one or
more of the dispenser walls;
(f) aligning at least one of the bag slits with one of the
box apertures;
(g) pulling out the top glove from the glove bag through
the bag slit and then through the aligned box aperture, and
thereby exposing, by friction and entanglement between the
gloves, a next successive glove at the bag slit; and
(h) pulling each successive glove from the glove bag
through the bag slit and then through the aligned box aperture,
and thereby exposing, by friction and entanglement between the
gloves, a next successive glove at the bag slit, until the bottom
glove is pulled out and the glove bag is empty.
Kelly, et al.,
Petrou
Milliom
Vistins, et al.,
Laroche
Abrahamsen
References and Rejection
US 4,436,231
US 5,628,858
US 2003/0057222 Al
US 2005/0015846 Al
US 2008/0061073 Al
US 7,975,455 B1
Mar. 13, 1984
May 13, 1997
Mar. 27, 2003
Jan. 27, 2005
Mar. 13, 2008
July 12,2011
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kelly, Abrahamsen, Vistins, and Milliom. Final Act. 2—6.
2. Claims 2—\ stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kelly, Abrahamsen, Vistins, Milliom, and Laroche. Final Act. 6—7.
3. Claims 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kelly, Abrahamsen, Vistins, Milliom, Laroche, and Petrou. Final Act.
7-8.
3
Appeal 2017-003199
Application 14/339,936
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 1—7 in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error.
Claim 1: Obviousness over Kelly, Abrahamsen,
VlSTINS, AND MlLLIORN
Non-analogous art.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s principle reference, Kelly, relates
to a process for making “lined and unlined work gloves and leather gloves”
and are non-analogous to the claimed resin-based, elastomeric gloves. App.
Br. 5—6 (quoting Kelly, col. 2,11. 14—19). Appellant contends Kelly teaches
“heavy gloves” such as “terry cloth, quilted, or double lined gloves or
leather gloves, driver gloves all leather and coated gloves having synthetic
coverings.” Id. (quoting Kelly, col. 4,11. 61—66). Appellant argues Kelly’s
process would be inapplicable to the manufacture of the claimed gloves. Id.
at 6 (“The Kelly process has no feasible application to resin-based
disposable elastomeric gloves, which are not stitched and don’t require the
turning operation Kelly employs)”.
The Examiner finds: “[t]he Kelly reference does not disclose how the
gloves are themselves manufacture but rather they are turned inside out after
obtaining the gloves from and [sic “an”] undisclosed process.” Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds Vistins teaches, similarly to the claimed method, fabricating
disposable gloves including a step of dipping a hand-shaped mold into liquid
resin. Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s position ignores the fact that the
Kelly glove turning process is specifically directed to stitched gloves, in
4
Appeal 2017-003199
Application 14/339,936
which the interior of the glove is first stitched, and then the glove is turned
to expose its exterior. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues the Kelly method
involves stretching the gloves’ fingertip stitching over tubes “to obtain the
desired grin or stretching of the threads” in order to relieve pressure on the
threads that would otherwise cause ripping when the gloves are turned right-
side-out. Id. (quoting Kelly, col. 4,11. 2—3). Appellant maintains that
because the resin-based elastomeric gloves of the present invention and the
Vistins patent inherently have no stitching, the entire glove turning method
and apparatus on which the Kelly patent is based are rendered totally useless
if Kelly is modified to incorporate Vistins’ glove forming process. Id.
We agree with Appellant. Kelly discloses:
[t]he novel glove turning machine of the present invention
furthermore assists in the pre-forming of the gloves by
providing not only a centering but also inducing the proper grin
on the finger tip threads to assist in subsequent glove forming
operation.
Kelly, col. 3,11. 25—30. Kelly is directed to an apparatus and process to
further stretch the threads in the fingers to obtain the desired grin3 or
stretching of the threads because:
The simultaneous turning of all of the fingers and thumb of the
glove and the turning of the body of the glove could result in
the tearing or ripping of the glove unless pressure is relieved
prior to the turning of the body of the glove.
3 “Grin” is “a temporary appearance of the stitch opening up in the seam
when stressed transversely.” David J. Tyler, ed., Carr and Latham’s
Technology of Clothing Manufacture, 4th ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford,
UK, (2008), p. 130.
5
Appeal 2017-003199
Application 14/339,936
Kelly, col. 4,11. 10-14. We find that obtaining a desired “grin,” or
stretching of threads is irrelevant to a glove molded from an elastomeric
material. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2-7: Obviousness over Kelly, Abrahamsen, Vistins,
Milliorn, and Laroche and Petrou.
Our foregoing discussion finds independent Claim 1 is not properly
rejected on prior art combinations that include at least Kelly and
Abrahamsen. The Examiner does not apply any of Vistins, Milliorn, and
Laroche and Petrou to teach the disputed limitations. In view of the
foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent Claims 2—7.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of Claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
6