11603481 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

Ex Parte Grilliot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2016

11603481 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/603,481 11122/2006 93730 7590 07/05/2016 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William L. Grilliot 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. H28480-MOR03334P02530US 9506 EXAMINER ANDERSON, AMBER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3678 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2016 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): ksanderson@woodphillips.com patentservices-us@honeywell.com docketing@woodphillips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM L. GRILLIOT, MARY I. GRILLIOT, and PATRICIAK. WATERS Appeal2013-000724 Application 11/603,481 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 11, 12, and 15-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2013-000724 Application 11/603,481 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to "a protective garment having an outer shell and a lining system, each having a front closure" providing "that the front closures do not overlie one another when the front closures are closed." Spec., p. 1, 11. 9-11. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A protective garment having a torso-covering portion and comprising an outer shell and a lining system extending throughout the torso-covering portion, the outer shell having an openable and closeable front closure, and the lining system comprising a moisture barrier with an inside and outside, the moisture barrier impermeable to water and blocking the passage of water from the outside to the inside of the moisture barrier and having an openable and closeable front closure, each front closure extending along a generally vertical path when said front closure is closed while the protective garment is being worn by a wearer standing vertically, wherein the front closures are staggered so as not to overlie one another when the front closures are closed while the protective garment is being worn, and the front closure of the outer shell overlies a portion of the lining system when the front closures are closed while the protective garment is being worn, wherein the protective garment has two arm-covering portions and wherein the front closure of the outer shell is arranged so as to be approximately centered between the arm-covering portions and the front closure of the lining system is arranged so as to be laterally offset towards one of the two arm- covering portions, when the front closures are closed while the protective garment is being worn. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kreckl Mordecai us 3,369,263 US 2007/0169247 Al 2 Feb.20, 1968 July 26, 2007 Appeal2013-000724 Application 11/603,481 REJECTION Claims 11, 12, and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mordecai and Kreckl. Ans. 2. OPINION Although the Appellants make five arguments, they all relate to the deficiencies in the Examiner's combination relating to the claimed feature of the outer shell having a laterally offset closure, which is allegedly taught by Kreckl. See App. Br. 4. In response to the Appellants' arguments, the Examiner asserts that Kreckl is used "only to teach that it is well known to have two front closure offset from one another." Ans. 9. The Examiner goes on to state that "[t]he location of the closures on Mordecai is immaterial [because] they would function the same if one was in the center and the other one offset to one side." Id. As the Appellants state, however, "Kreckl's teachings are much more specific than the Examiner's ... characterization." App. Br. 5. As the Appellants correctly point out, "Kreckl offsets the closure in the outer shell so that the closure can extend to the upper portion of the head and terminate in a closed area of the hood." Id. In other words, Kreckl does not teach the much broader concept of offsetting closures in general, but specifically teaches offsetting only the outer closure, while keeping the inner closure centered, so as to allow the outer closure to terminate in a closed area of the hood, thus "even if the zipper 7 is not completely drawn shut at the top, very little water or air can pass at this point, particularly if the hood is drawn tightly on the head." Kreckl, col. 4, 11. 34--36. 3 Appeal2013-000724 Application 11/603,481 As the Appellants also note, modifying Kreckl so as to offset the inner closure while leaving the outer closure centered "would completely defeat an express purpose" of Kreckl. App. Br. 7. If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F .2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner attempts to assert that it is Mordecai that is being modified according to the teaching of offset closures in Kreckl and that "nothing in Kreckl is being modified." Ans. 9. This, however, is incorrect because Kreckl only teaches offsetting the outer liner for a specific purpose, as discussed above. To transpose which closure is centered and which is offset is tantamount to further modifying Kreckl. Given that this additional modification of switching which closure is offset and which is centered defeats the specific purpose for offsetting the outer closure, we cannot accept the Examiner's proposed motivation for the modification. Further to the Examiner's characterization of Kreckl, we agree with the Appellants that "there is nothing in Kreckl that suggests its closures are staggered 'to prevent excessive moisture from getting to the wearer."' App. Br. 7 (citing Final Act. 5). As noted above, the sole stated reason for offsetting the outer closure is for it to terminate to the side under the hood, which would not be possible if it were centered because it would then terminate at the face hole for the user. Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner has mischaracterized Kreckl' s teaching as to why the closures are offset. Furthermore, we also agree with the Appellants that this alleged benefit is contradictory to the disclosure in Kreckl of the outer closure being watertight. See App. Br. 7. We agree that there is no need to prevent 4 Appeal2013-000724 Application 11/603,481 excessive moisture from getting to the wearer by offsetting the closures if the outer closure is water tight to begin with. We conclude that the Examiner has erred in attempting to broadly interpret Kreckl as merely teaching offset closures when, in fact, Kreckl only teaches offsetting only the outer closure for a specific purpose that would be defeated by the Examiner's proposed additional modification. As such we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, and 15-21 as obvious over Mordecai and Kreckl. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, and 15-21 is reversed. REVERSED 5