Ex Parte Kerr-Maddox et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 2, 2010

11383858 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 2, 2010)

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.
11/383,858 05/17/2006 Lisa Kerr-Maddox 1010.002 8338
36790 7590 09/02/2010
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
MORAN, KATHERINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LISA KERR-MADDOX and DANIEL LEE BIZZELL
____________________

Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 42-56. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a glove with interior grasping element for
inversion. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An invertible glove, comprising:

(a) a hand portion including,

(i) at least two digit portions configured to cover at
least two digits of a hand of a wearer of the glove, and

(ii) a palm portion configured to cover a palm of
the hand of the wearer of the glove;

(b) wherein the hand portion includes first and second
layers of the same pliable material joined in a unitary
construction,

(i) the first layer defining a first outermost exterior
surface and a first innermost interior surface of the hand
portion, and

(ii) the second layer defining a second outermost
exterior surface and a second innermost interior surface
of the hand portion, the first and second outermost
exterior surfaces defining an entire outermost exterior
surface of the hand portion of the glove, and the first and
second innermost interior surfaces defining an entire
innermost interior surface of the hand portion of the
glove for abutting the hand of the wearer of the glove;

Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
3
(c) wherein the hand portion further includes a grasping
element that extends from the hand portion and is configured to
be grasped and pulled by a digit of the hand of the wearer of the
glove for facilitating inversion of the glove when the hand is
removed from the glove; and

(d) wherein the grasping element comprises a portion of
at least one of the first and second layers of the pliable material
of the hand portion.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Morganstern
Wolfberg
Rojko
Beck
Surplus
Brower
Schaetzel
US 1,507,707
US 4,752,973
US 4,902,283
US 5,196,244
US 5,704,670
US 6,250,829 B1
US 6,516,469 B1
Sep. 9, 1924
Jun. 28, 1988
Feb. 20, 1990
Mar. 23, 1993
Jan. 6, 1998
Jun. 26, 2001
Feb. 11, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Brower. Ans. 3.
Claims 42, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Beck. Ans. 4.
Claims 42, 43, 45, and 53-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Surplus. Ans. 5.
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Schaetzel. Ans. 6.
Claims 46, 47, and 49-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schaetzel and Rojko. Ans. 7.
Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
4
Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schaetzel and Morganstern. Ans. 8.
Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beck and Wolfberg. Ans. 8.

SUMMARY OF APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS
Both independent claims 1 and 42 require that “the grasping element
comprises a portion of at least one of the first and second layers of the
pliable material of the hand portion.” Claims 1 and 42 additionally require
that the grasping element “extends from the hand portion” and “extends
from a surface of the hand portion”, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend that Brower’s flexible tab 116
cannot reasonably be interpreted to comprise a portion of at least one of the
first and second surfaces 112, 114 defining the cavity. App. Br. 8-9; Reply
Br. 2; see Brower Fig. 7A; col. 7, ll. 45-59. Appellants make similar
arguments regarding the rejection of claim 42 as being anticipated by Beck
and Schaetzel. Specifically, while Appellants concede that Beck’s
unillustrated tab “extends” from a surface of the hand portion, Appellants
contend Beck’s tab disposed on layer 2 does not comprise a portion of that
layer. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3. Regarding Schaetzel, Appellants contend
Schaetzel’s tab 20 which is stitched to the interior of the glove 10 can not be
reasonably read as a tab that comprises a portion of at least one layer of
Schaetzel’s glove 10. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5.
Regarding the rejection based upon Surplus, Appellants do not dispute
that Surplus’ fingers in excess of the recited “at least two digits,” read as the
claimed “grasping element,” comprise a portion of one of the layers.
Appellants contend that Surplus’ fingers do not comprise layers which
Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
5
define an “interior surface” of the glove and extend from such a surface “i.e.,
within the interior space of the glove.” App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3-4.
The remaining rejections are argued solely based upon dependency.
App. Br. 13-14.

OPINION
Each of Appellants’ assertions that none of Brower, Beck or Schaetzel
discloses “[a] grasping element [that] comprises a portion of at least one of
the first and second layers of the pliable material of the hand portion” is
premised upon the notion that some form of mechanical connection between
the structure the Examiner reads as the claimed “grasping element” in each
reference and the interior of the glove is not sufficient to make the grasping
element comprise a portion of the layers forming the glove. We disagree
with this premise. The claims do not require a unitary or one-piece
construction of a layer and grasping element. If the grasping element is
attached to one of the layers by sewing, as in Schaetzel, or by some other
unspecified mechanical means, as in Brower or Beck, it is reasonable to read
the grasping element as comprising a portion of at least one of the layers
forming the glove. It is also reasonable to read “attach[ment]” as making the
grasping element part of the layer. Thus, the layer also “defines” the
grasping element as required by claim 42. For these reasons, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Brower discloses a tab 116 attached at cavity
distal end 118 and this “attach[ment]” creates a “grasping element [that]
comprises a portion of at least one of the first and second layers of the
pliable material of the hand portion” as claimed. Brower col. 8 ll. 1-2; Ans.
3-4, 9. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Beck discloses a tab
(not illustrated) that can be grabbed which is attached in an unspecified
Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
6
manner to the inner layer of Beck’s glove. This creates a “grasping element
[that] comprises a portion of at least one of the first and second layers of the
pliable material of the hand portion” as claimed. Beck col. 7, ll. 15-20; Ans.
4-5, 9. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Schaetzel’s tab 20 is
stitched to the interior of the glove 10 and is therefore reasonably read as a
“grasping element [that] comprises a portion of at least one of the first and
second layers of the pliable material of the hand portion” as claimed.
Schaetzel col. 3, ll. 38-40; Ans. 6, 10-11.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments pertaining to Surplus, first, there is
no requirement in claim 42 that “extends from a surface” means “extends
from an interior surface.” Contra App. Br. 11. Second, the portion of
Surplus that would be grasped, for example by moving the fingers together,
is the V-shaped portion between the fingers which clearly extends from an
outer surface of the hand portion to the interior of the glove. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Surplus discloses a finger portion, which
may be grasped, and is therefore reasonably read as the claimed “grasping
element that extends from a surface of the hand portion.” See Surplus, Fig.
4; Ans. 5, 9-10.
For these reasons, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. We
therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err by making the above
rejections.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 42-56
are affirmed.

Appeal 2009-011328
Application 11/383,858
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

nlk

TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE NC 28277-0076