Ex Parte Deane

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2018

14532849 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/532,849 11/04/2014
92269 7590 06/11/2018
Global Intellectual Property Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 382
Swedesboro, NJ 08085
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerry Deane
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.
GD320534 7159
EXAMINER
POLITO, NICHOLAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2018 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):
info@globalipa.com
notifications@globalipa.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERRY DEANE
Appeal2017-010130 1
Application 14/532,8492
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-5 and 8-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Sept. 9, 2016), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 2, 2016) and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 11, 2015).
2 According to Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest is the sole inventor and
applicant, Gerry Deane." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010130
Application 14/532,849
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention relates to a sensory
and tactile game device and method of using the same that provides a pillow
apparatus with a transparent window, filler material disposed within the
body of the pillow, and various identifiable objects disposed throughout the
filler material." Spec. i-f 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A tactile and sensory pillow structure comprising:
a front panel, said front panel having an exterior side, an
interior side and an outer perimeter edge;
said front panel having a centrally located transparent
window;
said transparent window having a first side and a second
side, wherein said first side is flush with said exterior side of said
front panel and said second side is flush with said interior side of
said front panel thus forming a unitary body therewith;
a back panel, said back panel having an exterior side, an
interior side, and an outer perimeter edge;
wherein said outer perimeter edge of said interior side of
said front panel is connected to said outer perimeter edge of said
interior side of said back panel forming an interior volume;
said interior volume comprising filler material and a
plurality of identifiable objects therein.
Br. 17.
2
Appeal2017-010130
Application 14/532,849
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hollander3 in view of Chang. 4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hollander in view of Chang and Anthony. 5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hollander in view of Chang and Kay. 6
4. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hollander in view of Chang, Kay, and Anthony.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hollander in view of Chang and Official Notice.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness over Hollander and Chang
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hollander teaches a
pillow as claimed including a front panel, a transparent window, a back
panel, an interior volume, filler material, and edges connected as claimed.
Final Act. 2 (citing Hollander Fig. l; col. 4, 11. 3-18, 30-37; col. 5, 11. 26-
3 5). The Examiner acknowledges that Hollander does not teach including a
plurality of identifiable objects in the interior volume of the pillow. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Chang teaches a pillow including an
interior volume comprising filler material and identifiable objects. Id.
(citing Chang Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
3 Hollander et al., US 6,594,838 Bl, iss. July 22, 2003.
4 Chang, US 6,928,678 Bl, iss. Aug. 16, 2005.
5 Anthony, US 6,290,230 B 1, iss. Sept. 18, 2001.
6 Kay, US 6,053,634, iss. Apr. 25, 2000.
3
Appeal2017-010130
Application 14/532,849
obvious to include objects as in Chang in Hollander's pillow "to provide
entertainment for a user," "to provide accommodating support for a user's
head and neck, enabling the user to sleep more comfortably," and to provide
ventilation for the air inside the pillow "to reduce the temperature and
humidity inside the pillow." Id. at 2-3; see also id. at 6 (citing Chang col. 2,
11. 13-31, 39-49).
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1.
Appellant separately argues that each of the three rationales posited by
the Examiner lacks articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to
support the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious.
See Br. 10-15. We disagree and find that each rationale set forth by the
Examiner is supported by adequate articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to
combine Hollander and Chang as proposed by the Examiner. We agree with
the Examiner's responses to Appellant's arguments regarding each rationale.
See Ans. 2-5.
For example, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to add shaped objects as taught by Chang
to Hollander's pillow for entertainment purposes. See Final Act. 6; see also
Ans. 2-3. Chang discloses that the use of such blocks, including blocks with
different shapes are "attractive to children" and one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that the attractiveness of these blocks would thus
provide entertainment to children. See Chang col. 2, 11. 47--49; see also Ans.
2. Further, to the extent Appellant argues that any entertainment value in the
blocks would be diminished because the blocks would be obscured in
4
Appeal2017-010130
Application 14/532,849
Hollander's device, we are not persuaded for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. See Br. 11-12; see also Ans. 3. Specifically, Hollander discloses
that the purpose of the transparent window is to provide "visual access to the
interior space" of the pillow so that users can "readily identify the quality
and condition of the fill material therein." Hollander col. 2, 11. 1-15. We
agree with the Examiner that this disclosure at least suggests that the
addition of blocks as in Chang would not be completely obscured by
Hollander's fill material.
For these reasons, we find that the rejection of claim 1 is supported by
articulated reasoning with adequate rational underpinnings to support the
conclusion of obvious. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection,
and accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Remaining Rejections
Appellant does not provide any separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of claims 2-5 and 8-11 for the reasons discussed above.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 2-5 and 8-11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5