Ex Parte Gochanour

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 14, 2009

10686298 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte G. GARY GOCHANOUR
____________________

Appeal 2009-002934
Application 10/686,298
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: October 14, 2009
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-002934
Application 10/686,298

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
G. Gary Gochanour (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 121, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appellant’s counsel presented oral arguments on September 22, 2009.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a dispenser for a
protective hand covering (Spec. 1:6-8).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A dispenser for a hand covering,
comprising:
a housing to receive a roll of thin, flexible
film having opposing side edges to be used as a
hand covering;
a form configured to be grasped by a user
through the film such that the film temporarily
clings to the user's hand; and
a set of interIocking chains or opposing belts
on either side of the housing to retain the side
edges of the film as it moves through the dispenser
for each use.

1 The Examiner’s Answer noted that claims 5 and 11 were not rejected as
they were objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim (Ans. 2).
Therefore, claims 5 and 11 will not be considered in this Appeal.
Appeal 2009-002934
Application 10/686,298

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Stephenson US 4,773,532 Sep. 27, 1988
Broehl US 2002/0073821 A1 Jun. 20, 2002

The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 6, 72, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Stephenson.
2. Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stephenson in view of Broehl.

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Stephenson describes a set of interlocking chains or opposing belts on either
side of the housing to retain the side edges of the film as called for in
independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 7).

2 Claim 7 was not listed as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the first
sentence of the Grounds of Rejection section of the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 4) or in the Final Rejection mailed April 3, 2007 (Final Office Action,
pg. 4). The Examiner does analyze claim 7 against Stephenson, see Ans. 4.)
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 7 was argued by both the Appellant
(App. Br. 7) and the Examiner (Ans. 6). Inasmuch as both Appellant and the
Examiner appear to consider a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 7 as
appealed, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 7 will be considered in this
appeal.

Appeal 2009-002934
Application 10/686,298

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Stephenson does not describe two sets of
interlocking chains, that is, a first set on one side of the housing and a
second set on a second side of the housing (Reply Br. 2, App. Br. 7).
The Examiner found that (1) Stephenson describes a series of
perforations 17 (Ans. 7); (2) Stephenson’s perforations 17 are considered to
be chains (Ans. 7); (3) Stephenson describes chains on one side of the
housing (Ans. 8); (4) the word “either” has two definitions, “being the one
and the other of two” or “being the one or the other of two” (Ans. 8); (5) the
limitation of “either” as called for in independent claims 1 and 7 is broad
enough to be read on both of the aforementioned definitions (Ans. 8); and
(6) since Stephenson describes chains on one side of the housing,
Stephenson describes chains on “either” side of the housing as called for in
independent claims 1 and 7 (Ans. 8).
Independent claims 1 and 7 call for, inter alia, the limitations “a roll
of film having opposing side edges,” and “a set of interlocking chains on
either side of the housing to retain the side edges of the film.”
The ordinary meaning of the word “either” includes “one or the
other;” and “one and the other; each.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE®
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000).
In order for the opposing side edges of the film to be retained, as
called for in claims 1 and 7, there must be a set of interlocking chains on
both sides of the housing. Therefore, the word “either” as called for in
claims 1 and 7 can only be interpreted as “one and the other; each.”
Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 are interpreted as calling for a set of
Appeal 2009-002934
Application 10/686,298

5
interlocking chains on both sides of the housing to retain the side edges of
the film.
Stephenson describes a dispensing system including an enclosure 14,
a backing sheet 10 fabricated from a film and wound in the form of a spiral
roll 11, the roll 11 is positioned within the housing 14, an advancing crank
15, and a toothed sprocket wheel 16 engaging perforations 17 in the backing
sheet 10 (col. 2, ll. 43-63; fig. 1). Stephenson’s perforations 17 are located
on only one side of the housing 14.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that Stephenson does not describe
two sets of interlocking chains, that is, a first set on one side of the housing
and a second set on a second side of the housing as called for in claims 1 and
7.
Accordingly, Stephenson does not anticipate claims 1 and 7. For the
same reasons, Stephenson does not anticipate claims 6, 10, and 12, which
depend from claims 1 and 7.
The Examiner has not relied on Broehl for any teaching that would
remedy the deficiency in the Stephenson (Ans. 5). We thus conclude that
the Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 4 and 10 over Stephenson in
view of Broehl.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in finding that
Stephenson describes a set of interIocking chains or opposing belts on either
side of the housing to retain the side edges of the film as called for in
independent claims 1 and 7.
Appeal 2009-002934
Application 10/686,298

6
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 12 is
reversed.

REVERSED

LV

GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021